Putnam's 

Popular 

1\^ANUALS 


^\'^^^'\'^<^"\\^^. 


t>    'MMUUMmH 


=j 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT    LOS  ANGELES 

.,..,. 

J 

rV»  *  ' 


SOPHISMS 


OF 


PROTECTION 

BY   THE    LATE 

M.     FREDERIC     BASTIAT, 

Afetnber  of  the  Institute  of  France. 


Part    I.  Sophisms  of  Protection First  Series. 

Part  II.  Sophisms  of  Protection Second  Series. 

Part  III.  Spohation  and  Law 
Part  IV.  Capital  and  Interest. 


Translated    from,    the    J^aris    Coition    of    1863. 
WITH    PREFACE    BY    f^ORACE   WHITE. 


NEW-YORK  : 
G.     P.     PUTNAM'S    SONS, 

1888. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1869,  by 

THE  WESTERN  NEWS  COMPANY, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the 

Northern  District  of  Illinois. 


1 7  IS 

PEEFAOE. 


A  PREVIOUS  edition  of  this  work  has  been  published  under 

tlie  title  of  "Essays  on  Political  Economy,  by  the  late  M. 
^^ 
^     Frederic  Bastiat.  "     When  it  became  necessary  to  issue  a 

tv 

CE  second  edition,  the  Free-Trade  League  oflfered  to  buy  the 
stereotype  plates  and  the  copyright,  with  a  view  to  the  pub- 
lication of  the  book  on  a  large  scale  and  at  a  very  low  price. 

O      The    primary  object  of  the  League    is    to    educate  public 

j2 

ec      opinion  ;  to  convince  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  the 

2      folly    and   wrongfulness    of    the    Protective    system.     Tlie 

ul      methods  adopted  by  tlie  League  for  the  purpose  have  been 

■^      the  holding  of  public  meetings  and  the  publication  of  books, 
CO 

•s      pamphlets,  and  tracts,  some  of  which  are  for  sale  at  the  cost 

u.      of  publication,  and  others  given  away  gratuitously. 
O 

|_  In  publishing  this  book,  the  League  feels  that  it  is  offer- 

ee ing  the  most  elfective  and  most  popular  work  on  political 
economy  that  has  as  yet  been  written.  M.  Bastiat  not  only 
enlivens  a  dull  subject  with  his  wit,  but  also  reduces  the 
propositions  of  the  Protectionists  to  absurdities. 

4S2B87 


H  P  R  K  F  A  C  E  . 

Free-Traders  can  do  no  better  service  in  the  cause  of 
truth,  justice,  and  humanity,  than  l)y  circulating  this  little 
book  among  tlieir  friends.  It  is  ollered  you  at  what  it  costs 
to  print  it.  Will  not  every  Free-Trader  put  a  copy  of  the 
book  into  the  hands  of  his  Protectionist  friends? 

It  would  not  be  proper  to  close  this  short  preface  without 
an  expression  on  the  part  of  the  League  of  its  obligation  to 
the  able  translator  of  the  work  from  the  French,  Mr.  Horace 
White,  of  Chicago. 

Office  of  The  American  Free-Tkade  League, 
38  Burling  Slip,  New-T'o^'k-  June,  1870. 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION. 


This  compilation,  from  the  works  of  the  late  M.  Bastiat, 
is  given  to  the  public  in  the  belief  that  the  time  has  now 
come  when  the  people,  relieved  from  the  absorbing  anxi- 
eties of  the  war,  and  the  subsequent  strife  on  reconstruc- 
tion, are  prepared  to  give  a  more  earnest  and  thoughtful 
attention  to  economical  questions  than  was  possible  during 
the  previous  ten  years.  That  we  have  retrograded  in 
economical  science  during  this  period,  while  making  great 
strides  in  moral  and  political  advancement  by  the  abolition 
of  slavery  and  the  enfranchisement  of  the  freedmen,  seems 
to  me  incontestable.  Professor  Perry  has  described  very 
concisely  the  steps  taken  by  the  manufacturers  in  1861, 
after  the  Southern  members  had  left  their  seats  in  (Con- 
gress, to  reverse  the  policy  of  the  government  in  reference 
to  foreign  trade.*  lie  has  noticed,  but  has  not  laid  so 
much  stress  :i3  he  might,  on  the  fact  that  while  there  was 

*  Elements  of  Political  Economy,  p.  4G1. 


IV  P  K  E  F  A  C  E  . 

no  considerable  public  opinion  to  favor  thcni,  there  was 
none  at  all  to  oppose  them.  Not  only  was  the  attention 
of  the  people  diverted  from  the  tariflE  by  the  dangers  theii 
impending,  but  the  Republican  party,  which  then  came 
into  power,  had,  in  its  National  Convention,  offered  a 
bribe  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  for  its  vote  in  the 
Presidential  election,  which  bribe  was  set  forth  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  : 

"  Resolved,  That  while  providing  revenue  for  the  support  of 
the  General  Government  by  duties  upon  imports,  sound  policy' 
requires  such  an  adjustment  of  these  imposts  as  to  encourage 
the  development  of  the  industrial  interests  of  the  whole  coun- 
try ;  and  we  commend  that  jiolicy  of  national  exchanges  which 
secures  to  the  workingmen  liberal  wages,  to  agriculture  remu- 
nerative prices,  to  mechanics  and  manufacturers  an  adequate 
reward  for  their  skill,  labor,  and  enterprise,  and  to  the  nation 
commercial  prosperity  and  independence." — Chicago  Convention 
Platform,  1860. 

It  is  true  that  this  resolution  did  not  commit  anybody 
to  the  doctrine  that  the  industrial  interests  of  the  whole 
country  are  promoted  by  taxes  levied  upon  imported 
property,  however  "'  adjusted,"  but  it  was  understood,  by 
the  Pennsylvanians  at  least,  to  be  a  promise  that  if  the 
Kepublican  party  were  successful  in  the  coming  election, 
the  doctrine  of  protection,  which  had  been  overthrown  in 
1846,  and  had  been  in  an  extremely  languishing  state 
ever  since,  should  be  put  upon  its  legs  again.  I  am  far 
from  asserting  tliat  this  overture  was  needed  to  secure  the 


P  K  E  F  A  C  E  .  V 

vote  of  Pennsylvania  for  Mr.  Lincoln  in  1860,  or  tliat 
that  Slate  was  governed  by  less  worthy  motives  in  her 
political  action  than  otlier  States.  I  only  remark  that  her 
delegates  in  the  convention  thought  such  a  resolution 
would  be  extremely  useful,  and  such  was  the  anxiety  to 
secure  her  vote  in  the  election  that  a  much  stronger  reso- 
lution might  have  been  conceded  if  it  had  been  required. 
I  affirm,  however,  that  there  was  no  agitation  on  the  tariff 
question  in  any  other  quarter.  New  England  had  united 
in  passing  the  tariff  of  1857,  which  lowered  the  duties 
imposed  by  the  act  of  1846  about  fifty  per  cent.,  i.e.,  one 
half  of  the  previously  existing  scale.  The  Western  States 
had  not  petitioned  Congress  or  the  convention  to  disturb 
the  tariff  ;  nor  had  New  York  done  so,  although  Mr. 
Greeley,  then,  as  now,  was  invoking,  more  or  less  fre- 
quently, the  shade  of  Henry  Clay  to  help  re-establish 
what  is  deftly  styled  the  "  American  System." 

The  protective  policy  was  restored,  after  its  fifteen 
years'  sleep,  under  the  auspices  of  Mr.  Morrill,  a  Repre- 
sentative (now  a  Senator)  from  Vermont.  Latterly  I 
have  noticed  in  the  speeches  and  votes  of  this  gentleman 
(who  is,  I  think,  one  of  the  most  conscientious,  as  he  is 
one  of  the  most  amiable,  men  in  public  life),  a  reluctance 
to  follow  to  their  logical  conclusion  the  principles  em- 
bodied in  the  "  Morrill  tariff  "  of  1861.  His  remarks 
upon  the  copper  bill,  during  the  recent  session  of  Congress, 


VI  P  It  E  F  A  C  E  . 

indicate  that,  in  his  opinion,  those  branches  of  American 
industry  which  are  engaged  in  producing  articles  sent 
abroad  in  exchange  for  the  products  of  foreign  nations, 
are  entitled  to  some  consideration.  This  is  an  important 
admission,  but  not  so  important  as  another,  which  he 
made  in  his  speech  on  the  national  finances,  January  24, 
1867,  in  which,  referring  to  the  hank-note  circulation 
existing  in  the  year  1860,  he  said  :  "  And  that  was  a 
year  of  as  large  production  and  as  much  general  prosperity 
as  any,  jjerhaps^  in  our  history.''''  *  If  the  year  imme- 
diately preceding  tlie  enactment  of  the  Morrill  tarifE  was 
a  year  of  as  large  production  and  as  much  general  pros- 
perity as  any  in  our  history,  of  what  use  has  the  Moirill 
tariff  been  ?  AVe  have  seen  that  it  was  not  demanded  by 
any  public  agitation.  "We  now  see  that  it  has  been  of  no 
public  utility. 

In  combating,  by  arguments  and  illustrations  adapted 
to  the  comprehension  of  the  mass  of  mankind,  the  errors 
and  sophisms  with  which  protectionists  deceive  themselves 
and  others,  M.  Bastiat  is  the  most  lucid  and  pointed  of  all 
writers  on  economical  science  with  whose  works  I  have 
any  acquaintance.  It  is  not  necessary  to  accord  to  him  a 
place  among  the  architects  of  the  science  of  political 
economy,  although  some  of  his  admirers  rank  him  among 


*  Congressional  Globe,  Second  Session  Thirty-ninth   Congress,  Part  I. 
p.  124. 


PKEF  AC  E  .  VU 

the  highest.*  It  is  enouglito  count  him  among  the  great- 
est of  its  expounders  and  demonstrators.  His  death, 
which  occurred  at  Pisa,  Italy,  on  the  24th  of  December, 
1850,  at  the  age  of  49,  was  a  serious  loss  to  France  and 
to  the  world.  His  works,  though  for  the  most  part  frag- 
mentary, and  given  to  the  public  from  time  to  time 
through  the  columns  of  the  Journal  des  Economistes,  the 
Journal  des  Débats,  and  the  Libre  Echange,  remain  a  mon- 
ument of  a  noble  intellect  guided  by  a  noble  soul.  They 
have  been  collected  and  published  (including  i\\Q  Harmo- 
nies Economiques,  which  the  author  left  in  manuscript)  bv 
Guillaumin  &  Co.,  the  proprietors  of  the  Journal  des 
Economistes,  in  two  editions  of  six  volumes  each,  8vo  and 
12mo.  When  we  reflect  that  these  six  volumes  were 
produced  between  April,  1844,  and  December,  1850,  by 
a  young  man  of  feeble  constitution,  who  commenced  life 
as  a  clerk  in  a  mercantile  establishment,  and  who  spent 
much  of  his  time  during  these  six  years  in  delivering 
public  lectures,  and  laboring  in  the  National  Assembly,  to 
which  he  was  chosen  in  1848,  our  admiration  for  such 
industry  is   only  moditled  by  the  thought  that  if  he  had 

•Mr.  Macleod  (Dictionnry  of  Political  Econonnj,\o\.  i.  p.  240)  speaks 
ofBas'tiat's  detinition  of  Value  as  "  the  greatest  revolution  that  has  been 
effected  in  any  science  since  the  daj's  of  Galileo." 

See  also  Professor  Perry's  pamphlet,  Recent  Phases  of  Thmight  in 
Political  Economy,  read  before  the  American  Social  Science  Association, 
October,  1808,  in  which,  it  appe;irs  to  me,  that  Bastiflfs  theory  of  Rent, 
in  announcing  which  he  was  anticipated  by  Mr.  Carey,  is  too  highly 
praised. 


VIU  PREFACE. 

been  more  saving  of  his  strength,  lie  might  have  rendered 
even  greater  services  to  his  country  and  to  mankind. 

The  Sophismes  économiques,  which  fill  the  larger  portion 
of  this  volume,  Avere  not  expected  by  their  author  to  out- 
last the  fallacies  which  they  sought  to  overthrow.  But 
these  fallacies  have  lived  longer  and  have  spread  over 
more  of  the  earth's  surface  than  any  one  a  priori  could 
have  belived  possible.  It  is  sometimes  useful,  in  oppos- 
ing doctrines  which  people  have  been  taught  to  believe 
are  peculiar  to  their  own  country  and  time,  to  show  that 
the  same  doctrines  have  been  maintained  in  other 
countries  and  times,  and  have  been  exploded  in  other  lan- 
guages. By  what  misuse  of  words  the  doctrine  of  Pro- 
tection came  to  be  denominated  the  "  American  System," 
I  could  never  understand.  It  prevailed  in  Engbmd  nearly 
two  hundred  years  before  our  separation  from  the  mother 
country.  Adam  Smith  directed  the  first  formidable  attack 
against  it  in  the  very  year  that  our  independence  was 
declared.  It  held  its  ground  in  England  until  it  had 
starved  and  ruined  almost  every  branch  of  industry — agri- 
culture, manufactures,  and  commerce  alike.*     It  was  not 

*  It  is  so  often  afEimed  by  protectionists  that  the  superiority  of  Great 
Britain  in  manufactures  was  attained  by  means  of  protection,  that  it  is 
wortli  while  to  dispel  Unit  illusion.  The  facts  are  precisely  the  reverse. 
Protection  had  brought  Great  Britain  in  the  year  1842  to  the  last  stages 
of  penury  and  decay,  and  it  wanted  buta  year  or  two  more  of  the  same 
regimen  to  have  precipitated  the  country  into  a  bloody  revolution.  I  quote 
a  paragraph  from  Miss  Martiueau's  "  History  of  England  from  1816  to  1854," 
Book  vi.  chapter  5. 


PREFACE 


wholly  overthrown  until  1846,  the  same  year  that  wit- 
nessed its  discomfiture  in  the  United  States,  as  already 
shown.      It  still  exists  in  a  subdued  and  declining  way  in 

"  Serious  a«  was  the  task  of  the  Minister  (Sir  R.  Peel)  in  every  view,  the 
ino!it  iinmediaie  sympathy  was  felt  for  him  on  account  of  the  learful  state 
of  the  ijcople.  The  distress  had  now  so  deepened  in  the  mannfactiirins: 
districts  as  to  render  it  clearly  inevitable  that  many  must  die,  and  a 
multitude  be  lowered  to  a  state  of  sickness  and  irritability  from  want  of 
food  ;  wliile  there  seemed  no  chance  of  any  member  of  the  niannfaciuring 
classes  coming  out  of  the  struggle  at  last  with  a  vestige  of  property  where- 
with to  begin  the  world  again.  The  pressure  had  long  extendid  beyonil  the 
interests  lirst  affected,  and  when  the  new  Ministry  came  into  power,  there 
seetncd  to  1)6  no  class  that  was  not  threatened  with  ruin.  In  Carlisle,  the 
Committee  of  Inquiry  leiiorted  that  a  fourth  of  the  population  was  in  a 
state  bordering  on  starvation — actually  certain  to  die  of  famine,  unless  re- 
lieved by  extraordinary  exertions.  In  the  woollen  districts  of  \\iltshire, 
the  allowance  to  the  independent  laborer  was  not  two  thirds  of  the  mini- 
mum in  the  workhou-^e,  and  the  large  existing  population  consnmei  only  a 
fourth  of  the  brearl and  meat  require!  by  tlie  much  smaller  popnlition  of 
1820.  In  Stockport,  mare  than  half  the  master  spinners  had  failed  be- 
fore the  close  of  ISW  ;  dwelling-houses  to  the  number  of  3000  were  shut 
up;  and  the  occui)ier.s  of  manv  hundreds  more  were  unable  to  pay  rates 
at  all.  Five  thousand  persons  were  walking  the  streets  in  comjjulsory  idle- 
ness, and  the  Burnley  guardians  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  State  that  the 
distress  was  f  ir  beyond  their  management;  so  that  a  government  commis- 
sioner and  government  Innds  were  sent  down  without  delay.  At  a  meet- 
ing in  Manclies  or.  where  humble  shopkeepers  were  tlie  speakers,  anecdotes 
were  related  which  told  inoj-e  than  declamation.  Rent  collectors  were 
afraid  to  meet  tlieir  principals,  as  no  money  could  be  collected.  Provision 
dealers  were  subject  lo  incursions  from  a  wolfish  man  prowlingfor  food  for 
his  cliildroii.  or  fro  n  a  half-frantic  wman.  with  her  dying  haby  at  her 
Ijreast  ;  or  from  parties  of  ten  or  a  dozen  desperate  wretches  wlio  were  levy- 
ing contril)utions  along  the  street.  The  linen  draper  told  how  new  clothes 
had  become  out  of  the  question  with  bis  customers,  and  they  bought  only 
remnants  and  patches,  to  mend  the  old  oms.  The  baker  was  more  and  more 
surprised  at  the  ininiber  of  people  who  bought  half-pennyworlhs  of  bread. 
A  provi-iion  dealer  used  to  throw  away  outside  scraps  ;  but  now  respecable 
cu-toinors  of  twenty  years'  standing  bought  them  in  pennyworths  to 
moisten  their  potatoes.  The-p  ^hopkcenel■s  contemplated  nothing  but  rnin 
from  the  impoverished  cr)ndilioii  of  their  custnmers.  While  poor-rates 
were  increasing  beyond  all  precedent,  their  trade  was  only  one  half,  or 
one  third,  or  even  one  tenth  what  it  had  l)cen  three  years  before.  In  that 
neighborhood,  a  gentleman,  who  had  retired  from  business  in  1633.  leaving 
a  property  worth  £60,000  to  his  sons,  and  who  had,  early  in  the  distress. 
become  security  for  thetn,  was  showing  the  works  for  the  benefit  of  the 
creditors,  at  a  ealary  of  £1  a  week.  la  families  where  the  father  had 
h-therto  earned  £i  per  week,  and  laid  by  a  portion  weekly,  and  wher<^ 
all  was  now  gone  but  the  sacks  of  shavings  they  slept  on,  exertions  were 
made  to  get  '  blue  milk'  for  children  to  moisten  their  oatmeal  with  ;  but 
soon  they  could  have  it  only  on  alternate  days  ;  and  soon  water  must.  do. 
At  Leed-"  the  pauper  stone-heap  amounted  to  TôO.OOO  tons  ;  and  the  ginirdians 
offered  the  paupers  (is.  per  week  for  doing  nothing,  rather  Ilian  7s.  fid.  per 
week  for  stone-lireakinçr.  The  millwriirlits  and  other  trades  were  offering 
a  premium  on  emigration,  to  induce  their  hands  to  go   away.     At  Hinckley, 


X    .  PREFACE. 

Franco,  despite  the  powerful  and  brilliant  attacks  of  Say, 
Bastiat,  and  Chevalier,  but  its  end  cannot  be  far  distant 
in  that  country.  The  Cobdcn-Chevalier  treaty  with 
England  has  been  attended  by  consequences  so  totally  at 
variance  with  the  theories  and  prophecies  of  the  protec- 
tionists that  it  must  soon  succumb. 

As  these  pages  are  going  through  the  press,  a  telegram 
announces  that  the  French  Government  has  abolished  the 
discriminating  duties  levied  upon  goods  imported  in  for- 
eign bottoms,  and  has  asked  our  government  to  abolish 
the  like  discrimination  which  our  laws  have  created.    Com- 


one  third  of  the  inhabitants  were  paupers  ;  more  than  a  fifth  of  the  houses 
stood  empty  ;  and  there  was  not  work  enough  in  the  place  to  employ  properly 
one  third  of  the  weavers.  In  Dorsetshire  a  man  and  his  wife  had  for  wages 
2s.  6(i.  i)er  week,  and  three  loaves  ;  and  the  ablest  laborer  had  6s.  or  7s.  lu 
Sviltshire,  the  poor  peasants  held  open-air  meeiings  after  work — which 
was  necessarily  after  dark.  There,  by  the  light  of  one  or  two  flariiig  tallow 
candles,  tlie  man  or  the  woman  who  had  a  story  to  tell  siood  on  a  chair, 
and  related  how  their  children  were  fed  and  clothed  in  old  times— poorly 
enoiitfh,  Ijut  so  as  to  keep  borjy  and  soul  together  ;  and  now.  how  they  could 
nohow  manage  to  do  it.  The  bare  details  of  the  ages  of  their  children, 
and  what  the  little  things  could  do,  and  the  prices  of  bacon  and  bread, 
and  calico  and  coals,  had  more  pathos  in  them  than  any  oratory  heard 
elsewhere." 

"But  all  this  came  from  the  Corn  Laws,"  is  the  ready  reply  of  the 
American  protectionist.  The  Corn  Laws  were  the  doctrine  of  protection 
applied  to  breadstuffs,  farm  products,  "  raw  materials"  But  it  was  not 
<mly  protection  for  corn  that  vexed  England  in  1842,  but  protection  for 
everything  and  everybody,  from  the  landlord  and  the  mill-owner  to  the 
kelp-gatherer.  Every  species  of  manufacturing  industry  had  asked  and 
obtained  protection.  The  nation  had  put  in  force,  logica'ly  and  thoroughly, 
the  principle  of  denying  themselves  any  share  in  the  advantages  which 
nature  or  art  had  conferred  upon  other  climates  and  peoples  (which  is  the 
prinaiple  of  protection),  and  with  the  results  so  pathetically  described  by 
Miss  Martineau.  The  prosperity  of  British  manufactures  dates  from  the 
year  1846.  That  they  maintainel  any  kind  of  existence  prior  to  that 
time  is  a  most  :-triking  proof  of  the  vitality  of  liunian  industry  under  the 
peisecution  of  bad  laws. 


PREFACE.  XI 

mefcial  freedom  is  making  rapid  progressin  Prussia,  Aus- 
tria, Italy,  and  even  in  Spain.  The  United  States  alone, 
among  civilized  nations,  hold  to  the  opposite  principle. 
Our  anomalous  condition  in  this  respect  is  due,  as  I  think, 
to  our  anomalous  condition  during  the  past  eight  or  nine 
years,  already  adverted  to — a  condition  in  which  the  pro- 
tected classes  have  been  restrained  by  no  public  opinion 
— public  opinion  being  too  intensely  preoccupied  with  the 
means  of  preserving  the  national  existence  to  notice  what 
was  doing  with  the  tariff.  But  evidences  of  a  rewaken- 
ing  are  not  wanting. 

There  is  scarcely  an  argument  current  among  the 
protectionists  of  the  United  States  that  was  not  current 
in  France  at  the  time  Bastiat  wrote  the  Sophismes  écono- 
miques. Nor  was  there  one  current  in  his  time  that  is 
not  performing  its  bad  office  among  us.  Hence  his 
demonstrations  of  their  absurdity  and  falsity  are  equally 
applicable  to  our  time  and  country  as  to  his.  They  may 
have  even  greater  force  among  us  if  they  thoroughly 
dispel  the  notion  that  Protection  is  an  "  American  sys- 
tem."    Surely  they  cannot  do  less  than  this. 

There  are  one  or  two  arguments  current  among  the 
protectionists  of  the  United  States  that  were  not  rife  in 
France  when  Bastiat  wrote  his  Sophismes.  It  is  said,  for 
instance,  that  protection  has  failed  to  achieve  all  the  good' 
results  expected  from  it,  because  the  policy  of  the  govern- 


XU  PREFACE. 

nient  has  been  variable.  If  v,e  could  have  a  steady 
course  of  protection  for  a  sufficient  period  of  time  (nobody 
being  bold  enough  to  say  what  time  would  be  sufficient), 
and  could  be  assured  of  having  it,  we  should  see  won- 
derful progress.  But,  inasmuch  as  the  policy  of  the 
government  is  uncertain,  protection  has  never  yet  had  a 
fair  trial.  Tins  is  like  saying,  "  If  the  stone  which  I 
threw  in  the  air  had  stayed  there,  my  head  would  not  have 
been  broken  by  its  fall."  It  would  not  stay  there.  The 
law  of  gravitation  is  committed  against  its  staying  there. 
Its  only  resting-place  is  on  the  earth.  They  begin  by 
violating  natural  laws  and  natural  rights — the  right  to 
exchange  services  for  services — and  then  complain  because 
these  natural  laws  war  against  them  and  finally  overcome 
them.  But  it  is  not  true  that  protection  has  not  had  a 
fair  trial  in  the  United  States.  The  protection  has  been 
greater  at  some  times  than  at  others,  that  is  all.  Prior 
to  the  late  war,  all  our  revenue  was  raised  from  customs  ; 
and  while  the  tariffs  of  1846  and  1857  were  designated 
"free-trade  tariffs,"  to  distinguish  them  from  those  exist- 
ing before  and  since,  they  were  necessarily  protective  to 
a  certain  extent. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  there  is  need  of  diversifying  our 
industry — as  though  industry  would  not  diversify  itself 
sufficiently  through  the  diverse  tastes  and  predilections  of 
individuals  — as  though  it  were  necessary  to   supplement 


PREFACE.  Xlll 

the  work  of  the  Creator  in  this  behalf,  by  human  enact- 
ments founded  upon  reciprocal  rapine.  The  only  rational 
object  of  diversifying  industry  is  to  make  people  better 
and  happier.  Do  men  and  women  become  better  and 
happier  by  being  huddled  together  in  mills  and  factories, 
in  a  stifling  atmosphere,  on  scanty  wages,  ten  hours  each 
day  and  313  days  each  year,  than  when  cultivating  our 
free  and  fertile  lands  ?  Do  they  have  equal  opportunities 
for  mental  and  moral  improvement  ?  The  trades-unions 
tell  us,  No.  Whatever  may  be  tlie  experience  of  otlier 
countries,  where  the  land  is  either  owned  by  absentee  lords, 
who  take  all  the  product  except  wliat  is  necessary  to  give 
the  tenant  a  bare  subsistence,  or  where  it  is  cut  up  in 
parcels  not  larger  than  an  American  garden-patch,  it  is 
an  undeniable  fact  that  no  other  class  of  American 
workingmen  are  so  independent,  so  intelligent,  so  well 
provided  with  comforts  and  leisure,  or  so  rapidly  advanc- 
ing in  prosperity,  as  our  agriculturists  ;  and  this  notwith- 
standing they  are  enormously  overtaxed  to  maintain  other 
branches  of  industry,  which,  according  to  the  protective 
theory,  cannot  support  themselves.  The  natural  tendency 
of  our  people  to  flock  to  the  cities,  where  their  eyes  and 
ears  are  gratified  at  the  expense  of  their  other  senses, 
physical  and  moral,  is  sufficiently  marked  not  to  need  the 
influence  of  legislation  to  stimulate  it. 

It  is  not  tho  purpose  of  this  preface  to  anticipate  the 


XIV  PREFACE. 

admirable  arguments  of  M.  Bastiat  ;  but  tliere  is  another 
theory  in  vogue  which  deserves  a  moment's  consideration. 
Mr.  H.  0.  Carey  tells  us,  that  a  country  which  exports 
its  food,  in  reality  exports  its  soil,  the  foreign  consumers 
not  giving  back  to  the  land  the  fertilizing  elements  ab- 
stracted from  it.  Mr.  Mill  has  answered  this  argument, 
upon  philosophical  principles,  at  some  length,  showing 
that  whenever  it  ceases  to  be  advantageous  to  America 
to  export  breadstuffs,  she  will  cease  to  do  so  ;  also,  that 
when  it  becomes  necessary  to  manure  her  lands,  she  will 
either  import  manure  or  make  it  at  home.*  A  shorter 
answer  is,  that  the  lands  are  no  better  manured  by  having 
the  bread  consumed  in  Lowell,  or  Pittsburg,  or  even  in 
Chicago,  than  in  Birmingham  or  Lyons.  But  it  seems 
to  me  that  Mr.  Carey  does  not  take  into  account  the  fact 
that  the  total  amount  of  breadstuflfs  exported  from  any 
country  must  be  an  exceedingly  small  fraction  of  the 
whole  amount  taken  from  the  soil,  and  scarcely  apprecia- 
ble as  a  source  of  manure,  even  if  it  were  practically 
utilized  in  that  v/ay.  Thus,  our  exportation  of  flour  and 
meal,  wheat  and  Indian  corn,  for  the  year  1860,  as  com- 
pared with  the  total  crop  produced,  was  as  follows  : 

TOTAL    CROP.f 

Flour  and  Meal,  bbls.  Wheat,  bu.  Corn,  bu. 

55,217,800  173,104,924  838,792,740 

*  Principles  of  Political  Economy  (People's  Ed.),  London,  1865,  page  557. 
t  These  flgurea  are  taken  from  the  census  report  for  the  year  1860.      lu 


PREFACE.  XV 

Exportation. 
Flour  and  Meal,  bbls.  Wheat,  bu.  Corn,  bu. 

2,845,305  4,155,153  1,314,155 

Percentage  of  Exportation  to  Total  Crop. 
5.15  2.40  .39 

This  was  the  result  for  the  year  preceding  the  enact- 
ment of  the  Morrill  tariff.  It  is  true  that  our  exports  of 
wheat  and  Indian  corn  rose  in  the  three  years  following 
the  enactment  of  the  Morrill  tariff,  from  an  average  of 
eight  million  bushels  to  an  average  of  forty-six  million 
bushels,  but  this  is  contrary  to  the  theory  that  high  tariffs 
tend  to  keep  breadstuffs  at  home,  and  low  ones  to  send 
them  abroad.  There  is  need  of  great  caution  in  making 
generalizations  as  to  the  influence  of  tariffs  on  the  move- 
ment of  breadstuffs.  Good  or  bad  harvests  in  various 
countries  exercise  an  uncontrollable  influence  upon  their 
movement,  far  beyond  the  reach  of  any  legislation  short 
of  prohibition.  The  market  for  breadstuffs  in  the  world 
is  as  the  number  of  consumers  ;  that  is,  of  population. 
It  is  sometimes  said  in  the  way  of  reproach  (and  it  is  a 
curious  travesty  of  Mr.  Carey's  manure  argument),  that 


this  report  the  total  production  of  flour  and  meal  is  given,  not  in  barrels, 
but  in  value.  The  quantity  is  ascertained  by  dividing  the  total  value  by 
the  average  price  per  barrel  in  New  York  during  ihe  year,  the  fluctuations 
then  being  very  slight.  Flour  being  a  manufactured  article,  is  ic  not  a 
little  curious  that  we  exported  under  the  "free-trade  tarifE"  twice  as 
large  a  psrcentage  of  breadstuffs  in  tbat  form  as  we  did  of  the  "raw 
material,"  wheat  Î 


XVI  PREFACE. 

foreign  nations  will  not  take  our  breadstuffs.  It  is  not 
true  ;  but  if  it  were,  that  would  not  be  a  good  reason  for 
our  passing  laws  to  prevent  them  from  doing  so  ;  that  is, 
to  deprive  them  of  the  means  to  pay  for  them.  Every 
country  must  pay  for  its  iinports  with  its  exports.  It 
must  pay  for  the  services  which  it  receives  with  the  ser- 
vices which  it  renders.  If  foreign  nations  are  not  al- 
lowed to  render  services  to  us,  how  shall  we  render  them 
the  service  of  bread  ? 

The  first  series  of  Bastiat's  Sophismes  were  published  in 
1845,  and  the  second  series  in  1848.  The  first  series  were 
translated  in  1848,  by  Mrs.  D.  J.  McCord,  and  published 
the  same  year  by  G.  P.  Putnam,  New  York.  Mrs. 
McCord's  excellent  translation  has  been  followed  (by  per- 
mission of  her  publisher,  who  holds  the  copyright),  in  this 
volume,  having  been  first  compared  with  the  original,  in 
the  Paris  edition  of  1863.  A  very  few  verbal  alterations 
have  been  made,  which,  however,  have  no  bearing  on  the 
accuracy  and  faithfulness  of  her  work.  The  translation 
of  the  essay  on  ""Capital  and  Interest"  is  from  a  duo- 
decimo volume  published  in  London  a  year  or  two  ago, 
the  name  of  the  translator  being  unknown  to  me.  The 
second  series  of  the  Sophismes,  and  the  essay  entitled 
"Spoliation    and    Law,"    are,    I    believe,    presented    in 

English  for  the  first  time  in  these  pages. 

H.  W. 
Chicago,  August  1,  1869. 


PART    I. 


SOPHISMS  OF  PKOTECTION. 


FIRST    SERIES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


My  object  in  this  little  volume  has  been  to  refute 
some  of  the  arguments  usually  advanced  against 
Free  Trade. 

I  am  not  seeking  a  combat  with  the  protectionists. 
I  merely  advance  a  prmciple  which  1  am  anxious  to 
present  clearly  to  the  minds  of  sincere  men,  who 
liesitate  because  they  doubt. 

I  am  not  of  the  number  of  those  who  maintain 
that  protection  is  supported  by  interests.  I  believe 
that  it  is  founded  upon  errors,  or,  if  you  will,  upon 
incomplete  truths.  Too  many  fear  free  trade,  for 
this  apprehension  to  be  other  than  sincere. 

My  aspirations  arc  perhaps  high  ;  but  1  confess 
that  it  would  give  me  pleasure  to  hope  that  this 
little  work  might  become,  as  it  were,  a  manual  for 
such  men  as  may  be  called  upon  to  decide  between 


2  SOl'HISMS    OK    PROTECTION. 

tJie  two  prmoiples  "'-'"WKèfi  'orie  has  not  made  oneself 
perfectly  fumi liar  with  the  'doctrines  of  free  trade, 
the  sophisihs  of  protection  perpctuallj  return  to  the 
mind  under  one  form  or  another  ;  and,  on  each 
occasion,  in  order  to  counteract  their  effect,  it  is 
necessary  to  enter  into  a  long  and  laborious  analysis. 
Few,  and  least  of  all  legislators,  have  leisure  for  this 
labor,  which  1  M'ould,  on  this  account,  wish  to  pre- 
sent clearly  drawn  up  to  their  hand. 

But  it  may  be  said,  Are  then  the  l)enefits  of  free 
trade  so  hidden  as  to  be  perceptible  only  to  econo- 
mists by  profession  ? 

Yes,  we  confess  it  ;  our  adversaries  in  the  discus- 
sion have  a  sigTud  advantage  over  us.  They  can, 
in  a  few  Avords,  present  an  incomplete  truth  ; 
which,  for  us  to  show  that  it  is  incomplete,  renders 
necessary  long  and  uninteresting  dissertations. 

This  results  from  the  fact  that  protection  accumu- 
lates upon  a  single  point  the  good  which  it  effects, 
while  the  evil  inflicted  is  infused  throughout  the 
mass.  The  one  strikes  the  eye  at  a  first  glance, 
while  the  other  becomes  perceptible  only  to  close 
investigation.  With  regard  to  free  trade,  precisely 
the  reverse  is  the  case. 

It  is  thus  with  almost  all  questions  of  political 
economy. 

If  you  say,  for  instance  :  There  is  a  machine 
wliich  has  turned  out  of  cm})l()yment  thirty  work- 
men ; 


INTRODUCTION.  6 

Or  again  :  There  is  a  spendthrift  who  encourages 
every  kind  of  industry  ; 

Or  :  The  con(|uest  of  Algiers  lias  doubled  the 
connnerce  of  Marseilles  ; 

Or,  once  more  :  The  public  taxes  support  one 
hundred  thousand  families  ; 

You  are  understood  at  once  ;  your  propositions 
are  clear,  simple,  and  true  in  themselves.  .If  you 
deduce  from  them  the  principle  that 

Machines  are  an  evil  ; 

That  sumptuous  extravagance,  conquest,  and 
heavy  imposts  are  blessings  ; 

Your  theory  will  have  the  more  success,  because 
you  will  be  able  to  base  it  upon  indisputable  facts. 

But  we,  for  our  part,  cannot  stop  at  a  cause  and 
its  immediate  effect  ;  for  we  know  that  this  effect 
may  in  its  turn  become  itself  a  cause.  To  judge 
of  a  measure,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  follow 
it  from  step  to  step,  from  result  to  resnlt,  until 
through  the  successive  links  of  the  chain  of  events 
we  arrive  at  the  final  effect.  We  must,  in  short, 
reason . 

But  liere  we  are  assailed  by  clamorous  exclama- 
tions :  You  are  theorists,  metaphysicians,  ideolo- 
gists, Utopians,  men  of  maxims  !  and  immediately 
all  the  prejudices  of  the  public  are  against  us. 

What  then  shall  we  do  ?  We  must  invoke  the 
patience  and  candor  of  the  reader,  giving  to  our 
deductions,  if  we  are  capable  of  it,  sufficient  clear- 


4  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

iicss  to  throw  forward  at  once,  witli(.)iit  disguise  or 
palliation,  the  tnio  and  the  false,  in  order,  once  for 
all,  to  determine  whether  the  victory  should  be  for 
Ilestriction  or  Free  Ti'ade. 

I  wish  hero  to  make  a  remark  of  some  impor- 
tance. 

Some  extracts  from  this  volume  liave  appeared  in 
the  'Journal  des  Economistes. 

In  an  article  otherwise  quite  complimentary  pub- 
lished by  the  Viscount  de  Romanet  (see  Moniteur 
Industriel  of  the  15th  and  18th  of  May,  181:5),  he 
intimates  that  I  ask  for  the  suppression  of  custom- 
houses. Mr.  De  Eomanet  is  mistaken.  I  ask  for  the 
suppression  of  \\\q  protective  policy .  We  do  not  dis- 
pute the  right  of  (jovernment  to  impose  taxes,  but 
would,  if  possible,  dissuade  producers  from  taxing 
one  another.  It  was  said  by  Napoleon  that  duties 
shouid  never  be  a  fiscal  instrument,  but  a  means  of 
protecting  industry.  We  plead  the  contrary,  and 
say,  that  duties  should  never  be  made  an  instru- 
ment of  reciprocal  rapine  ;  but  that  they  may  be 
employed  as  a  useful  fiscal  machine.  1  am  so  far  from 
asking  for  the  suppression  of  duties,  that  1  look  upon 
them  as  the  anchor  on  which  the  future  salvation 
of  our  finances  will  depend.  I  believe  that  they  may 
bring  immense  receipts  into  the  treasury,  and  to  give 
my  entire  aiul  undisguised  opinion,  I  am  inclined, 
from  the  slow  progress  of  healthy,  economical  doc- 
trines, and  from  the  magnitude  of  our  budget,  to 


INTRODUCTION. 


hope  more  for  the  cause  of  commercial  reform  from 
the  necessities  of  the  treasury  than  from  the  force 
of  an  enlightened  public  opinion. 


SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 


ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY. 

Which  is  the  best  for  man  or  for  society,  abun- 
dance  or  scarcity  ? 

How,  it  may  be  exclaimed,  can  such  a  question 
be  asked  ?  Has  it  ever  been  pretended,  is  it  possi- 
ble to  maintain,  that  scarcity  can  be  the  basis  of  a 
man's  happiness  ? 

Yes  ;  this  has  been  maintained,  this  is  daily  main- 
tained ;  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  tlie  scarcity 
theory  is  by  far  the  most  popular  of  the  day.  It 
furnishes  the  subject  of  discussions,  in  conversa- 
tions, journals,  books,  courts  of  justice  ;  and  extraor- 
dinary as  it  may  appsar,  it  is  certain  that  political 
economy  will  have  fulfilled  its  task  and  its  practical 
mission  when  it  shall  have  rendered  common  and 
irrefutable  the  simple  proposition  that  "  in  abun- 
dance consist  man's  riches." 

Do  we  not  hear  it  said  every  day,  "  Foreign 
nations  are  inundating  us  with  their  productions"  ? 
Then  we  fear  abundance. 

Has  not  Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq  said,  "  Production  is 
superabundant"  ?     Then  he  fears  abundance. 

Do  we  not  see  workmen  destroying  and  breaking 
machinery  ?  They  are  frightened  by  the  excess  of 
production  ;  in  other  words,  they  fear  abundance. 


ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY.  7 

Has  not  Mr.  Bugeaud  said,  ""  Let  bread  bo  dear 
and  the  agricnlturist  will  be  rich"  ?  Now  bread 
can  onl)'  be  dear  because  it  is  scarce.  Then  Mr. 
Bugeaud  lauded  scarcity. 

Has  not  Mr.  d'Argout  produced  the  fruitfulness 
of  the  sugar  culture  as  an  argument  against  it  ? 
Has  he  not  said,  ''  The  beet  cannot  have  a  perma- 
nent and  extended  cultivation,  because  a  few  acres 
given  up  to  it  in  each  department  would  furnish 
sufficient  for  the  consumption  of  all  France'  '  ? 
Then,  in  his  opinion,  good  consists  in  sterility  and 
scarcity,  evil  in  fertility  and  abundance. 

La  Presse,  Le  Commerce,  and  the  majority 
of  our  journals,  are,  every  day,  publishing  articles 
whose  aim  is  to  prove  to  the  chambers  and  to  gov- 
ernment that  a  wise  policy  should  seek  to  raise 
prices  by  tariffs  ;  and  do  we  not  daily  see  these 
powers  obeying  these  injunctions  of  the  press  ? 
Now,  tariffs  can  only  raise  prices  by  diminishing 
the  quantity  of  goods  offered  for  sale.  Then,  here 
M'e  see  newspapers,  the  legislature,  the  ministry,  all 
guided  by  the  scarcity  theory,  and  I  was  correct  in 
my  statement  that  this  theory  is  by  far  the  most 
popular. 

How  then  has  it  happened,  that  in  the  eyes  at 
once  of  laborers,  editors,  and  statesmen,  abundance 
should  appear  rdarming,  and  scarcity  advantageous  ? 
It  is  my  intention  to  endeavor  to  show  the  origin  of 
this  delusion. 


8  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

A  inan  becomes  ricli  in  proportion  to  the  profit- 
ableness of  his  labor  ;  that  is  to  sa}'',  i7i  jproportion 
as  he  sells  his  j)roductions  at  a  high  price.  The 
])rice  of  his  productions  is  higli  in  proportion  to 
their  scarcity.  It  is  plain  then,  that,  as  far  as  re- 
gards him  at  least,  scarcity  enriches  him.  Apply- 
ing successively  this  mode  of  reasoning  to  each  class 
of  laborers  individually,  the  scarcity  theoi'y  is  de- 
duced from  it.  To  put  this  theory  into  practice, 
and  in  order  to  favor  each  class  of  labor,  an  artifi- 
cial scarcity  is  forced  in  every  kind  of  production, 
by  prohibition,  restriction,  suppression  of  machin- 
ery, and  other  analogous  measures. 

In  the  same  manner  it  is  observed  that  when  an 
article  is  abundant  it  brings  a  small  price.  The 
gains  of  the  producer  are,  of  course,  less.  If  this 
is  the  case  with  all  produce,  all  producers  are  then 
poor.  Abundance  then  ruins  society.  And  as  any 
strong  conviction  will  always  seek  to  force  itself 
into  practice,  we  see,  in  many  countries,  the  laws 
aiming  to  prevent  abundance. 

This  sophism,  stated  in  a  general  form,  would 
produce  but  a  slight  impression.  But  when  applied 
to  any  particular  order  of  facts,  to  any  particular 
article  of  industry,  to  any  one  class  of  labor,  it  is 
extremely  specious,  because  it  is  a  syllogism  which 
is  woifalse^  but  incomplete.  And  what  is  true  in  a 
syllogism  always  necessarily  presents  itself  to  the 
inindj  while  the  incomplete^  which  is  a  negative 


ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY.  y 

cjiiality,  an  unknown  value,  is  easily  forgotten  in 
the  calculation. 

Man  produces  in  order  to  consume.  lie  is  at 
once  producer  and  consumer.  The  argument  giv^en 
above  considers  him  only  under  the  first  point  of 
view.  Let  us  look  at  him  in  the  second  character, 
and  the  conclusion  will  be  different.  We  may  say, 
The  consumer  is  rich  in  proportion  as  he  huys  at 
a  low  price.  lie  buys  at  a  low  price  in  ]3roportion 
to  the  abundance  of  the  article  in  demand  ;  abun- 
dance then  enriches  him.  This  reasoning  extended 
to  all  consumers  must  lead  to  the  theory  of  abun- 
dance ! 

It  is  the  imperfectly  understood  notion  of  e.K- 
cliange  of  produce  which  leads  to  these  fallacies.  If 
we  consult  our  individual  interest,  we  perceive  im- 
mediately that  it  is  double.  As  sellers  we  are  inter- 
ested in  high  prices,  consequently  in  scarcity.  As 
buyers  our  advantage  is  in  cheapness,  or  what  is  the 
same  thing,  abundance.  It  is  impossil)le  then  to 
found  a  proper  system  of  reasoning  upon  either  the 
one  or  the  other  of  these  separate  interests  before 
determining  which  of  the  two  coincides  and  identi- 
ties itself  with  the  general  and  permanent  interests 
of  mankind. 

If  man  were  a  solitary  animal,  w^orking  exclu- 
sively for  himself,  consuming  the  fruit  of  his  own 
personal  labor  ;  if,  in  a  word,  he  did  not  exchange 
his  produce,  the  theory  of  scarcity  could  never  have 


10  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

introduced  itself  into  tlie  world.  It  would  be  too 
strikingly  evident,  that  abundance,  whencesoever 
derived,  is  advantageous  to  him,  whether  this  abun- 
dance might  be  the  result  of  his  own  labor,  of  in- 
genious tools,  or  of  powerful  machinery  ;  whether 
due  to  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  to  the  liberality  of 
nature,  or  to  an  inundation  of  foreign  goods,  such 
as  the  sea  bringing  from  distant  regions  might  cast 
upon  his  shores.  Never  would  the  solitary  man 
have  dreamed,  in  order  to  encourage  his  own  labor, 
of  destroying  his  instruments  for  facilitating  his 
work,  of  neutralizing  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  or  of 
casting  back  into  the  sea  the  produce  of  its  bounty. 
Pie  would  understand  that  his  labor  was  a  ineans,  not 
an  end,  and  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  reject  the 
object,  in  order  to  encourage  the  means.  He  would 
understand  that  if  he  has  required  two  hours  per 
day  to  supply  his  necessities,  anything  which  spares 
him  an  hour  of  this  labor,  leaving  the  result  the 
same,  gives  him  this  hour  to  dispose  of  as  he  pleases 
in  adding  to  his  comforts.  In  a  word,  he  would 
understand  that  every  step  in  the  saving  oflahor  is 
a  step  in  the  improvement  of  his  condition.  But 
traffic  clouds  our  vision  in  the  contemplation  of  this 
simple  truth.  In  a  state  of  society  with  the  divi- 
sion of  labor  to  which  it  leads,  the  production  and 
consumption  of  an  article  no  longer  belong  to  the 
same  individual.  Each  now  looks  upon  his  labor 
not  as  a  means,  but  as  an  end.     The  exchange  of 


ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY.  11 

produce  creates  with  regard  to  each  object  two  .sep- 
arate interests,  that  of  the  producer  and  that  of  the 
consumer  ;  and  these  two  interests  are  always 
directly  opposed  to  each  other. 

It  is  essential  to  analyze  and  study  the  nature  of 
each.  Let  us  then  suppose  a  producer  of  whatever 
kind  ;  what  is  his  immediate  interest  ?  It  consists 
in  two  things  :  1st,  that  the  smallest  possible  num- 
ber of  individuals  should  devote  themselves  to  the 
business  which  he  follows  ;  and  2ndly,  that  the 
greatest  possible  number  should  seek  the  articles  of 
his  produce.  In  the  more  succinct  terms  of  Politi- 
cal Economy,  the  suppl}^  should  be  small,  the  de- 
mand large  ;  or  yet  in  other  words  :  limited  com- 
petition, unlimited  consumption. 

What  on  the  other  side  is  the  ijnmediate  interest 
of  the  consumer  ?  That  the  sup^ily  should  be 
large,  the  demand  small. 

As  these  two  interests  are  immediately  opposed 
to  each  other,  it  follows  that  if  one  coincides  with 
the  general  interest  of  society,  the  other  must  be  ad- 
verse to  it. 

Which  then,  if  either,  should  legislation  favor  as 
contributing  most  to  the  good  of  the  community  ? 

To  determine  this  question,  it  suffices  to  inquire 
in  which  the  secret  desires  of  the  majority  of  men 
would  be  accomplished. 

Inasmuch  as  we  are  producers,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  we  have  each  of  us  anti-social  desires. 


12  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Are  WG  virie-o;rowers  ?  It  wonld  not  distress  us 
were  the  frost  to  nip  all  the  vines  in  the  world  ex- 
cept our  own  :  t/iJs  is  the  scarcity  theory.  Are  we 
iron-workers  ?  We  would  desire  (whatever  might 
be  the  pnbhc  need)  that  the  market  should  offer  no 
iron  but  our  own  ;  and  precisely  for  the  reason  that 
this  need,  painfully  felt  and  imperfectly  supplied, 
causes  us  to  receive  a  high  price  for  our  iron  :  again 
here  is  the  theory  of  scarcity.  Are  we  agricultur- 
ists ?  We  say  with  Mr.  Biigeaud,  let  bread  be  dear, 
that  is  to  say  scarce,  and  our  business  goes  well  : 
again  the  theory  of  scarcity. 

Are  we  physicians  ?  We  cannot  but  see  that  cer- 
tain physical  ameliorations,  such  as  the  improved 
climate  of  the  country,  the  development  of  certain 
moral  virtues,  the  progress  of  knowledge  pushed  to 
the  extent  of  enabling  each  individual  to  take  care 
of  his  own  health,  the  discovery  of  certain  simple 
remedies  easily  applied,  would  be  so  many  fatal 
blows  to  our  profession.  As  physicians,  then,  our 
secret  desires  are  anti-social.  I  must  not  be  under- 
stood to  imply  that  physicians  allow  themselves  to 
form  such  desires.  I  am  happy  to  believe  that 
they  would  hail  with  joy  a  universal  panacea.  But 
in  such  a  sentiment  it  is  the  man,  the  Christian, 
who  manifests  himself,  and  who  by  a  praiseworthy 
abnegation  of  self,  takes  that  point  of  view  of  the 
question,  which  belongs  to  the  consumer.  As  a 
physician    exercising   his   profession,    and   gaining 


ABUNDANCE-'— SCARCITY  13 

from  this  profession  his  standing  in  society,  his 
comforts,  even  the  means  of  existence  of  his  family, 
it  is  impossible  but  that  his  desires,  or  if  you  please 
so  to  word  it,  his  interests,  should  be  anti- social. 

Are  we  manufacturers  of  cotton  goods  ?  We  de- 
sir*,  to  sell  them  at  the  price  most  advantageous  to 
ourselves.  We  woiild  willingly  consent  to  the  sup- 
pression of  all  rival  manufactories.  And  if  we  dare 
not  publicly  express  this  desire,  or  pursue  the  com- 
plete realization  of  it  with  some  success,  we  do  so, 
at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  by  indirect  means  ;  as, 
for  example,  the  exclusion  of  foreign  goods,  in 
order  to  diminish  the  quantity  offered.^  and  to  pro- 
duce thus  by  forcible  means,  and  for  our  own 
profits,  a  scarcity  of  clothing. 

We  might  thus  pass  in  review  every  business  and 
every  profession,  and  should  always  find  that  the 
producers,  in  their  character  of  producers^  have 
invariably  anti- social  interests.  "  The  shopkeeper 
(says  Montaigne)  succeeds  in  his  business  through 
the  extravagance  of  youth  ;  the  laborer  by  the  high 
price  of  grain  ;  the  architect  by  the  decay  of 
houses  ;  officers  of  justice  by  lawsuits  and  quarrels. 
The  standing  and  occupation  even  of  ministers  of 
religion  are  drawn  from  our  death  and  our  vices. 
No  physician  takes  pleasure  in  the  health  even  of 
his  friends  ;  no  soldier  in  the  peace  of  his  country  ; 
and  so  on  with  all.  '  ' 

If  then  the  secret  desires  of  each  producer  were 


1-1  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

realized,  tlie  world  would  rapidly  retrograde  tow- 
ard barbarism.  The  sail  would  proscribe  steam  ; 
tlie  oar  would  proscribe  the  sail,  only  in  its  turn  to 
give  way  to  wagons,  the  wagon  to  the  mule,  and 
the  mule  to  the  foot- peddler.  "Wool  would  exclude 
cotton  ;  cotton  would  exclude  wool  ;  and  thus  on, 
until  the  scarcity  and  want  of  everything  would 
cause  man  himself  to  disappear  from  the  face  of  the 
globe. 

If  we  now  go  on  to  consider  the  immediate  inter- 
est of  the  consumer,  we  shall  find  it  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  the  public  interest,  and  with  the  well- 
being  of  humanity.  When  the  buyer  presents 
himself  in  the  market,  he  desires  to  find  it  abun- 
dantly furnished.  He  sees  with  pleasure  propitious 
seasons  for  harvesting  ;  wonderful  inventions  put- 
ting within  his  reach  the  largest  possible  quantity 
of  produce  ;  time  and  labor  saved  ;  distances 
effaced  ;  the  spirit  of  peace  and  justice  diminishing 
the  weight  of  taxes  ;  every  barrier  to  improvement 
cast  down  ;  and  in  all  this  his  interest  runs  parallel 
with  an  enlightened  public  interest.  He  may  push 
his  secret  desires  to  an  absurd  and  chimerical 
height,  but  never  can  they  cease  to  be  humanizing 
in  their  tendency.  He  may  desire  that  food  and 
clothing,  house  and  hearth,  instruction  and  moral- 
ity, security  and  peace,  strength  and  health,  should 
come  to  us  without  limit  and  without  labor  or  effort 
on  our  part,  as  the  water  of  the  stream,  the  air 


ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY.  15 

which  WQ  breathe,  and  the  sunl)cams  in  wliich  we 
bask,  but  never  could  the  reahzation  of  his  most  ex- 
travagant wishes  run  counter  to  the  good  of  society. 

It  may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  were  these  desires 
granted,  tlie  labor  of  the  producer  constantly 
checked  would  end  by  being  entirely  arrested  for 
want  of  support.  But  why  ?  Because  in  this  ex- 
treme supposition  every  imaginable  need  and  desire 
would  be  completely  satisfied.  Man,  like  the  All- 
powerful,  would  create  by  the  single  act  of  his  will. 
How  in  such  an  hypothesis  could  laborious  produc- 
tion be  regretted  ? 

Imagine  a  legislative  assembly  composed  of  pro- 
ducers, of  whom  each  member  should  cause  to  pass 
into  a  law  his  secret  desire  as  21.  jprodiicer  •  the  code 
which  would  emanate  from  such  an  assembly  could 
be  nothing  but  systematized  monopoly  ;  the  scarcity 
theory  put  into  practice. 

In  the  same  manner,,  an  assembly  in  which  each 
member  should  consult  only  his  immediate  interest 
of  consumer  would  aim  at  the  systematizing  of  free 
trade  ;  the  suppression  of  every  restrictive  meas- 
ure ;  the  destruction  of  artificial  barriers  ;  in  a 
word,  would  realize  the  theory  of  abundance. 

It  follows  then, 

That  to  consult  exclusively  the  immediate  interest 
of  the  producer,  is  to  consult  an  anti-social  interest. 

To  take  exclusively  for  basis  the  interest  of  the 
consumer,  is  to  take  for  basis  the  general  interest. 


16  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTKCTIOxV. 

Let  me  be  permitted  to  insist  once  more  upon 
this  point  of  view,  though  at  tlie  risk  of  repetition. 

A  radical  antagonism  exists  between  the  seller 
and  the  buyer. 

The  former  wishes  the  article  offered  to  be  scarce^ 
supply  small,  and  at  a  high  price. 

The  latter  wishes  it  ahundani.,  supply  large,  and 
at  a  low  price. 

The  laws,  which  should  at  least  remain  neutral, 
take  part  for  the  seller  against  the  buyer  ;  for  the 
producer  against  the  consumer  ;  for  high  against 
low  prices  ;  for  scarcity  against  abundance.  They 
act,  if  not  intentionally,  at  least  logically,  upon  the 
principle  that  a  nation  is  rich  in  proportion  as  it  is 
i?i  loant  of  everything. 

For,  say  they,  it  is  necessary  to  favor  the  pro- 
ducer by  securing  him  a  profitable  disposal  of  his 
goods.  To  effect  this  their  price  must  be  raised  ; 
to  raise  the  price  the  supply  must  l)e  diminished  ; 
and  to  diminish  the  supply  is  to  create  scarcity. 

Let  us  suppose  that  at  this  moment,  with  these 
laws  in  full  action,  a  complete  inventory  should  be 
made,  not  by  value,  but  by  weight,  measure,  and 
quantity,  of  all  articles  now  in  France  calculated  to 
supply  the  necessities  and  plcasui'es  of  its  inhabi- 
tants ;  as  grain,  meat,  woollen  and  cotton  goods, 
fuel,  etc. 

Let  us  suppose  again  that  to-morrow  every  barrier 
to  the  introduction  of  foreign  goods  should  be  re- 
moved. 


ABUNDANCE SCAKCITY.  17 

Then,  to  judge  of  the  effect  of  such  a  reform,  let 
a  new  inventory  be  made  three  months  hence. 

Is  it  not  certain  that  at  tlie  time  of  the  second  in- 
ventory the  quantity  of  grain,  cattle,  goods,  iron, 
coal,  sugar,  etc.,  will  be  greater  than  at  the  first  ? 

So  true  is  this,  that  the  sole  object  of  our  protec- 
tive tariffs  is  to  prevent  sucli  articles  from  reaching 
us,  to  diminish  the  supply,  to  prevent  low  prices, 
or  which  is  the  same  thing,  the  abundance  of  goods. 

Now  I  ask,  are  the  people  under  the  action  of 
these  laws  better  fed  because  there  is  less  bread,  less 
meat,  and  less  suizar  in  the  country  ?  Are  they 
better  dressed  because  there  are  fewer  goods  ?  Bet- 
ter warmed  because  there  is  less  coal  ?  Or  do  they 
prosper  better  in  their  labor  because  iron,  copper, 
tools,  and  machinery  are  scarce  ? 

But,  it  is  answered,  if  we  are  inundated  with 
foreign  goods  and  produce,  our  coin  will  leave  the 
country. 

Well,  and  what  matters  tliiat  ?  Man  is  not  fed 
with  ooin.  lie  does  )mt  dress  in  gold,  nor  warm 
himself  with  silver.  What  difference  does  it  make 
whether  there  be  more  or  less  coin  in  the  country, 
provided  there  be  more  bread  in  the  cupboard,  more 
meat  in  the  hirder,  more  clothing  in  the  press,  and 
more  wood  in  the  cellar  ? 

To  Restrictive  Laws  I  offer  this  dilemma  : 
Either  you   allow  that  you   produce  scarcity,  or 
you  do  not  allow  it. 


18  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

If  you  allow  it,  yon  confess  at  once  that  your  end 
is  to  injure  the  people  as  much  as  possil)le.  If  you 
do  not  allow  it,  then  you  deny  your  power  to  dimin- 
ish the  supply,  to  raise  the  price,  and  consequently 
you  deny  having  favored  the  producer. 

You  are  either  injurious  or  inefficient.  You  can 
never  be  useful. 


II. 

OBSTACLE- — CAUSE. 

The  obstacle  mistaken  for  the  cause — scarcity 
mistaken  for  abundance.  The  sophism  is  the  same. 
It  is  "well  to  -study  it  under  every  aspect. 

Man  naturally  is  in  a  state  of  entire  destitution. 

Between  this  state  and  the  satisfying  of  his  wants 
tlifere  exists  a  multitude  of  ohstacles  which  it  is  the 
object  of  labor  to  surmount.  It  is  interesting  to 
seek  how  and  why  he  could  have  been  led  to  look 
even  upon  these  obstacles  to  his  happiness  as  the 
cause  of  it. 

I  wish  to  take  a  journey  of  some  hundred  miles. 
But,  between  the  point  of  my  departure  and  my 
destination,  there  are  inier])()sed  mountains,  rivers, 
swamps,  forests,  robbers — in  a  word,  ohstacles  /  and 
to  conquer  these  obstacles  it  is  necessary  that  I 
should  bestow  much  labor  and  great  efforts  in  op- 
posing them  ; — or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  if  others 


OBSTACLE — CAUSE.  19 

do  it  for  niG,  I  must  pay  tlieni  tlie  value  of  tlieir 
exertions.  It  is  evident  that  I  should  have  been 
better  off  had  these  obstacles  never  existed. 

Through  the  journey  of  life,  in  the  long  series  of 
days  from  tlie  cradle  to  the  tomb,  man  has  many 
difficulties  to  oppose  him  in  his  progress.  Hunger, 
thirst,  sickness,  lieat,  cold,  are  so  numy  obstacles 
scattered  along  liis  road.  In  a  state  of  isolation  he 
would  be  obliged  to  combat  them  all  by  hunting, 
fishing,  agriculture,  spinning,  weaving,  architect- 
ure, etc.,  and  it  is  very  evident  that  it  would  be 
better  for  him  that  these  difficulties  should  exist  to 
a  less  degree,  or  even  not  at  all.  In  a  state  of 
society  lie  is  not  obliged,  personally,  to  struggle 
with  each  of  these  obstacles,  but  others  do  it  for 
him  ;  and  he,  in  return,  must  remove  some  one  of 
them  for  the  benefit  of  his  fellow-men. 

Again  it  is  evident,  that,  considering  mankind  as 
a  whole,  it  would  be  better  for  society  that  these 
obstacles  should  be  as  weak  and  as  few  as  possible. 

But  if  we  examine  closely  and  in  detail  the  plie- 
Homena  of  society,  and  the  private  interests  of  men 
as  modified  by  exchange  of  produce,  we  perceive, 
without  difficulty,  how  it  has  happened  that  wants 
have  been  (îonfounded  with  riches,  and  the  obstacle 
with  the  cause. 

The  separation  of  occupations,  which  results  from 
the  habits  of  exchange,  causes  each  man,  instead  of 
struggling  against  all  surrounding  obstacles,  to  com- 


20  SOPHISMS    OK    I'KOTECTION. 

[)at  only  07ie  ;  tlie  effort  boiiig  itkuIc  not  for  himself 
alone,  l^nt  for  the  benefit  of  his  fellows,  who,  in 
their  turn,  render  a  sijnilar  service  to  him. 

Now  it  hence  results,  that  this  man  loohs  upon 
the  obstacle  which  he  has  made  it  his  profession  to 
combat  for  the  ])enefit  of  others,  as  the  immediate 
cause  of  his  riches.  The  greater,  the  more  serious, 
the  more  stringent  may  be  this  obstacle,  the  more 
he  is  remunerated  for  the  conquering  of  it,  by 
those  who  are  relieved  by  his  labors. 

A  physician,  for  instance,  does  not  busy  himself 
in  baking  his  l)read,  or  in  manufacturing  his  cloth- 
ing and  his  instruments  ;  others  do  it  for  him,  and 
he,  in  return,  combats  the  maladies  with  wliicli  his 
patients  are  afflicted.  The  more  dangerous  and  fre- 
quent tliese  maladies  are,  the  more  others  are  will- 
ing, the  more,  even,  are  they  forced,  to  work  in 
his  service.  Disease,  then,  which  is  an  obstacle 
to  the  happiness  of  mankind,  becomes  to  him  the 
source  of  his  comforts.  The  reasoning  of  all  pro- 
ducers is,  in  what  concerns  themselves,  the  same. 
As  the  doctor  draws  his  profits  from  disease,  so 
does  the  sliip-owner  from  the  o])stacle  called  6?/^- 
tance  ;  the  agriculturist  from  that  named  hunger  / 
the  cloth  manufacturer  from  cold  j  the  schoolmas- 
ter lives  ui)on  ignorance^  the  jeweller  upon  vanity, 
the  lawyer  upon  quarrels^  the  notary  upon  Jjreach 
of  faith.  Each  profession  has  then  an  immediate 
interest  in  the  continuation,  even  in  the  extension, 


OBSTACLE — CAUSE.  21 

of  tlie  particular  obstacle  to  which  its  attention  has 
been  directed. 

Theorists  hence  go  on  to  found  a  system  upon 
these  individual  interests,  and  say  :  Wants  are 
riches  :  Labor  is  riches  :  The  obstacle  to  well-being 
is  well-being  :  To  multiply  obstacles  is  to  give  food 
to  industry. 

Then  comes  the  statesman  ; — and  as  the  develop- 
ing and  propagating  of  obstacles  is  the  developing 
and  propagating  of  riches,  what  more  natural  than 
that  he  should  bend  his  efforts  to  that  point  ?  He 
says,  for  instance  :  If  we  prevent  a  large  importa- 
tion of  iron,  we  create  a  diûiculty  in  procuring  it. 
This  obstacle,  severely  felt,  obliges  individuals  to 
pay,  in  order  to  relieve  themselves  from  it.  A 
certain  number  of  our  citizens,  giving  themselves 
up  to  the  combating  of  this  obstacle,  will  thereby 
make  their  fortunes.  In  proportion,  too,  as  the 
obstacle  is  great  and  the  mineral  scarce,  inaccessi- 
ble, and  of  difHcnlt  and  distant  transportation,  in 
the  same  ])ro]3ortion  will  be  the  number  of  laborers 
maintained  by  the  various  branches  of  this  industry. 

The  same  reasoning  will  lead  to  the  suppression 
of  machinery. 

Here  arc  men  who  are  at  a  loss  how  to  dispose  of 
their  wine-harvest.  This  is  an  obstacle  wliich  other 
men  set  about  removing  for  them  by  the  manu- 
facture of  casks.  It  is  fortunate,  say  our  states- 
men, that  this  obstacle  exists,   since  it  occupies  a 


22  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

portion  of  the  labor  of  the  nation,  and  enriches  a 
certain  number  of  our  citizens.  But  here  is  pre- 
sented to  us  an  ingenious  machine  whicli  cuts 
down  the  oak,  squares  it,  makes  it  into  staves,  and, 
gathering  these  together,  forms  them  into  casks. 
The  obstacle  is  thus  diminished,  and  with  it  the 
protits  of  the  coopers.  We  must  prevent  this. 
Let  us  proscribe  the  machine  ! 

To  sift  thoroughly  this  sophism,  it  is  sufficient  to 
rememi)er  that  human  labor  is  not  an  end^  but  a 
means.  It  is  never  without  employment.  If  one 
obstacle  is  removed,  it  seizes  another,  and  man- 
kind is  delivered  from  two  obstacles  by  the  same 
effort  which  was  at  first  necessary  for  one.  If  the 
labor  of  coopers  becomes  useless,  it  mast  take  an- 
other direction.  But  with  what,  it  may  be  asked, 
will  they  be  remunerated  ?  Precisely  with  what 
they  are  at  present  remunerated.  For  if  a  certain 
quantity  of  hibor  becomes  free  from  its  original  oc- 
cupation, to  be  otherwise  disposed  of,  a  correspond- 
ing quantity  of  wages  must  thus  also  become  free. 
To  maintain  that  human  labor  can  end  by  wanting 
employment,  it  would  be  necessary  to  prove  that 
mankind  will  cease  to  encounter  obstacles.  In  such 
a  case,  labor  would  be  not  only  impossible,  it  would 
be  superfluous.  We  should  have  nothing  to  do, 
because  we  should  be  all-powerful,  and  our  fiat 
alone  would  satisfy  at  once  our  wants  and  our 
desires. 


EFFOKT KESl'LT.  23 

III. 

EFFORT — RESULT. 

We  have  seen  that  between  our  wants  and  tlieir 
gratification  many  obstacles  are  interposed.  We 
conquer  or  weaken  these  by  the  employment  of  our 
faculties.  It  may  be  said,  in  general  terms,  that 
industry  is  an  effort  followed  by  a  result. 

But  by  what  do  we  measure  our  well-being  ?  By 
the  result  of  our  effort,  or  by  the  effort  itself  f  There 
exists  always  a  proportion  between  the  effort 
employed  and  the  result  obtained.  Does  progress 
consist  in  the  relative  increase  of  the  second  or  of 
the  first  term  of  this  proportion  ? 

Both  propositions  have  been  sustained,  and  in 
political  economy  opinions  are  divided  between 
them. 

According  to  the  first  system,  riches  are  the  result 
of  labor.  They  increase  in  the  same  ratio  as  the 
result  does  to  the  effort.  Absolute  perfection,  of 
which  God  is  the  type,  consists  in  the  infinite  dis- 
tance between  these  two  terms  in  this  relation,  viz., 
effort  none,  result  infinite. 

The  second  system  maintains  that  it  is  the  effort 
itself  which  forms  the  measure  of,  and  constitutes 
our  riches.  Progression  is  the  increase  of  thc^>/7>- 
portloii  of  the  effort  to  tJte  residt.     Its  ideal  extreme 


24  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION, 

may  be  represented  hy  tlM3  eternal  and  fruitless 
efforts  of  Sisyphus.* 

The  first  system  tends  naturally  to  tlie  encourage- 
ment of  every  thing  which  diniinislies  difficulties 
and  augments  production — as  powerful  machinery, 
which  adds  to  the  strengtli  of  man  ;  the  excliange 
of  produce,  which  allows  us  to  profit  by  the  various 
natural  agents  distributed  in  di fièrent  degrees  over 
the  surface  of  our  globe  ;  the  intellect  which  dis- 
covers, experience  which  proves,  and  emulation 
which  excites. 

The  second  as  logically  inclines  to  every  thing 
which  can  augment  the  difficulty  and  cfiminish  the 
product;  as  privileges,  monopolies,  restrictions,  pro- 
hibitions, suppression  of  machinery,  sterility,  etc. 

It  is  well  to  remark  here  that  the  universal  prac- 
tice of  men  is  always  guided  by  the  principle  of  the 
first  system.  Every  worhnan,  whether  agricult- 
urist, manufacturer,  merchant,  soldier,  writer,  or 
philosopher,  devotes  the  strength  of  his  intellect  to 
do  better,  to  do  more  quiclcly,  more  economically, 
— in  a  word,  to  do  more  with  less. 

The  opposite  doctrine  is  in  use  with  legislators, 
editors,  statesmen,  men  whose  business  is  to  make 
experiments  upon  society.  And  even  of  these  we 
may  observe,  that  in  what  personally  concerns  thein- 
selves,   they  act,   like  every  body  else,   upon  the 

*  We  will  theroforG  beg  the  ruadcr  to  allow  us  in  future,  for  the  sake  of 
conciseness,  to  designate  this  system  under  the  term  oï  Sisyphism. 


EFFORT RESULT.  25 

principle  of  obtaining  from  their  labor  the  greatest 
possible  qnantitj  of  useful  results. 

It  may  be  supposed  that  I  exaggerate,  and  that 
there  are  no  true  Sisi/phlsts. 

I  grant  that  in  practice  the  principle  is  not  pushed 
to  its  extremest  consequences.  And  this  must 
always  be  the  case  when  one  starts  upon  a  wrong 
principle,  because  the  absurd  and  injurious  results 
to  which  it  leads  cannot  but  check  it  in  its  progress. 
For  this  reason  practical  industry  never  can  admit 
of  Sisyphism.  The  error  is  too  quickly  followed  by 
its  punishment  to  remain  concealed.  But  in  the 
speculative  industry  of  theorists  and  statesmen,  a 
false  princi])le  may  be  for  a  long  time  followed  up, 
before  the  complication  of  its  consequences,  only 
lialf  understood,  can  prove  its  falsity  ;  and  even 
when  all  is  revealed,  the  opposite  principle  is  acted 
upon,  self  is  contradicted,  and  justification  sought, 
in  the  incomparably  absurd  modern  axiom,  tliat  in 
political  economy  there  is  no  principle  universally 
true. 

Let  ws  see,  then,  if  the  two  opposite  principles  1 
have  laid  down  do  not  predominate,  each  in  its  turn  ; 
— the  one  in  practical  industry,  the  other  in  indus- 
trial legislation. 

I  have  already  quoted  some  words  of  Mr.  I^u- 
gcaud  ;  but  we  must  look  on  Mr.  P)Ugeaud  in  two 
separate  characters,  the  agriculturist  and  the  legis- 
lator. 


26  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

As  agriculturist,  Mr.  Bugeaud  makes  every  effort 
to  attain  tlie  double  object  of  sparing  labor  and 
obtaining  bread  cheap.  When  he  prefers  a  good 
plough  to  a  bad  one,  when  he  improves  the  quality 
of  his  manures  ;  when,  to  loosen  his  soil,  he  substi- 
tutes as  much  as  possible  the  action  of  the  atmos- 
phere for  that  of  the  hoe  or  the  harrow  ;  when  he 
calls  to  his  aid  every  improvement  that  science  and 
experience  have  revealed,  he  has,  and  can  have,  but 
one  object,  viz.,  to  diininish  the  2^'''oportion  of  tlie 
effort  to  the  result.  We  have  indeed  no  other 
means  of  judging  of  the  success  of  an  agriculturist, 
or  of  the  merits  of  his  system,  but  by  observing 
how  far  he  has  succeeded  in  lessening  the  one, 
while  he  increases  the  other  ;  and  as  all  the  farmers 
in  the  world  act  u]>on  this  principle,  we  may  say 
that  all  n^ankind  are  seeking,  no  dou1)t  for  their 
own  advantage,  to  obtain  at  the  lowest  price, 
bread,  or  whatever  other  article  of  produce  they 
may  need,  always  diminishing  the  effort  necessary 
for  obtaining  any  given  quantity  thereof. 

This  incontestable  tendency  of  human  nature, 
once  proved,  would,  one  might  suppose,  be  sufficient 
to  point  out  the  true  principle  to  the  legislator,  and 
to  show  him  how  he  ought  to  assist  industry  (if 
indeed  it  is  any  part  of  his  business  to  assist  jt  at 
all),  for  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  the  laws  of 
men  should  operate  in  an  inverse  ratio  from  those  of 
Providence. 


EFFORT — RESULT.  27 

Yet  we  have  heard  Mr.  Bngeand  in  his  character 
of  legislator  exclaim,  "I  do  not  understand  this 
theory  of  ciieapness  ;  I  would  I'ather  see  bread  dear 
and  work  more  abundant."  And  consequently  the 
deputy  from  Dordogne  votes  in  favor  of  legislative 
measures  whose  effect  is  to  shackle  aild  impede  com- 
merce, precisely  because  by  so  doing  we  are  pre- 
vented from  procuring  by  exchange,  and  at  low 
price,  wliat  direct  production  can  only  furnish  more 
expensively. 

Now  it  is  very  evident  that  the  system  of  Mr. 
Bugeaud  the  deputy,  is  directly  opposed  to  that  of 
Mr.  Bugeaud  the  agriculturist.  Were  he  consistent 
with  himself,  he  would  as  legislator  vote  against  all 
restriction  ;  or  else  as  farmer,  he  would  practise  in 
his  fields  the  same  ])rinciplc  which  he  proclaims  in 
the  public  councils.  We  should  then  see  him  sowing 
his  grain  in  his  most  sterile  lields,  because  he  would 
thus  succeed  in  lahorimj  much  to  ohtain  little.  We 
should  see  him  forbidding  the  use  of  the  plough, 
because  he  could,  by  scratching  up  the  soil  with  his 
nails,  fully  gratify  his  double  wish  of  "  deal'  bread 
and  abundant  labor.'''' 

Restriction  has  for  its  avowed  object  and  acknowl- 
edged effect  the  augmentation  of  la])or.  And 
again,  equally  avoM'ed  and  acknowledged,  its  object 
and  effect  are  the  increase  of  prices  ; — a  synonymous 
term  for  scarcity  of  produce.      I^ished  then  to  its 


28  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTKCTK ).'.'. 

greatest  extreme,  it  is  pure  Sl-'<]ipJti^iii,  as  we  have 
defined  it  :  lahor  infinite,  7'esult  nothiyuj. 

Baron  Charles  Dupin,  wlio  is  k)oked  upon  as  the 
oracle  of  the  peerage  in  the  science  of  political 
economy,  accuses  railroads  of  injurijig  shipping, 
and  it  is  certainly  true  that  the  most  perfect  means 
of  attaining  an  object  must  always  limit  the  use  of 
a  less  perfect  means.  But  railways  can  only  injure 
shipping  by  drawing  from  it  articles  of  transporta- 
tion ;  this  they  can  only  do  by  transporting  more 
cheaply  ;  and  they  can  only  transport  more  cheaply 
by  ditninishing  the  proportion  of  the  effort  employed 
to  the  result  ohtained  ^  for  it  is  in  this  that  cheap- 
ness consists.  When,  therefore,  Baron  Dupin  la- 
ments the  suppression  of  labor  in  attaining  a  given 
result,  ho  maintains  the  doctrine  of  Sls>/phls7n. 
Logically,  if  he  prefers  the  vessel  to  the  railway, 
he  should  also  prefer  the  wagon  to  the  vessel,  the 
pack-saddle  to  the  wagon,  and  the  wallet  to  the 
pack-saddle  ;  for  this  is,  of  all  known  means  of 
transportation,  the  one  which  requires  the  greatest 
amount  of  labor,  in  proportion  to  the  result  ob- 
tained. 

"  Labor  constitutes  the  riches  of  the  people,"  said 
Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq,  a  minister  wdio  has  laid  not  a 
few  shackles  upon  our  commerce.  This  was  no  ellip- 
tical expression,  meaning  that  the  "  results  of  labor 
constitute  the  riches  of  the  people."  No, — this 
statesman  intended  to  say,  that  it  is  the  Intensity  of 


EFFORT — RESULT.  29 

Jabor  wliicli  measures  riclies  ;  and  tlie  proof  of 
this  is,  that  from  step  to  step,  from  restriction  to 
restriction,  he  forced  on  France  (and  in  so  doing 
believed  that  he  was  doing  well)  to  give  to  the  pro- 
curing of,  for  instance,  a  certain  quantity  of  iron, 
double  the  necessary  labor.  In  England  iron  was 
then  at  eight  francs  ;  in  France  it  cost  sixteen.  Sup- 
posing the  day's  work  to  be  worth  one  franc,  it  is 
evident  that  France  could,  by  barter,  procure  a 
quintal  of  iron  by  eight  days'  labor  taken  from 
the  labor  of  the  nation.  Thanks  to  the  restrictive 
measures  of  Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq,  sixteen  days'  work 
were  necessary  to  procun>  it,  by  direct  production. 
Here,  then,  we  have  double  labor  for  an  identical 
result;  therefore  double  riches;  and  riches  measured, 
not  by  the  result,  but  by  the  intensity  of  labor.  Is 
not  this  pure  and  unadulterated  Sk)j2>hism  ? 

That  there  may  be  nothing  equivocal,  the  minister 
carries  his  idea  still  farther,  and  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple that  we  have  heard  him  call  the  intensity  of 
labor  riches,  we  will  find  liini  calling  the  abundant 
results  of  labor,  and  the  plenty  of  everything  propter 
to  the  satisfying  of  our  wants,  ]}oi)erty.  "  Every- 
where," he  remarks,  "  machinery  has  pushed  aside 
manual  labor  ;  everywhere  production  issnperabun- 
dant  ;  everywhere  the  equilibrium  is  destroyed  be- 
tween the  power  of  production  and  that  of  consump- 
tion. "  Here,  then,  we  see  that,  according  to  Mr. 
de  Saint  Cricq,  if  France  was  in  a  critical  situation, 


30  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

it  was  because  lier  productions  were  too  abundant  ; 
tiiere  was  too  much  intelligence,  too  much  efficiency 
in  her  national  labor.  We  were  too  well  fed,  too 
well  clothed,  too  well  supplied  with  every  thing  ; 
the  rapid  production  was  more  than  sufficient  for 
our  wants.  It  was  necessary  to  put  an  end  to  this 
calamity,  and  therefore  it  became  needful  to  force 
us,  by  restrictions,  to  work  more,  in  order  to  pro- 
duce less. 

I  also  touched  upon  an  opinion  expressed  by 
another  minister  of  commerce,  Mr.  d'  Argout,  which 
is  worthy  of  being  a  little  more  closely  looked  into. 
Wishing  to  give  a  death-blow  to  the  beet,  he  said  : 
"  The  culture  of  the  beet  is  undoubtedly  useful,  hut 
this  usefuhiess'is  limited.  It  is  not  capable  of  the  pro- 
digious developments  which  have  been  predicted  of 
it.  To  be  convinced  of  this  it  is  enough  to  remark 
that  the  cultivation  of  it  must  necessarily  be  con- 
fined within  the  limits  of  consumption.  Double, 
treble  if  you  will,  the  present  consumption  of  France, 
and  you  will  still  find  that  a  very  small  2>ortion  of 
her  soil  will  stijficefor  this  cojisumjytion.  (Truly  a 
most  singular  cause  of  complaint  !)  Do  you  wish 
the  proof  of  this  1  How  many  hectares  were  plant- 
ed in  beets  m  the  year  1828  ?  3130,  which  is 
l-lOSlOth  of  our  cultivable  soil.  Plow  many  are 
there  at  this  time,  when  our  domestic  sugar  sup- 
plies one  third  of  the  consumption  of  the  country  ? 
16,700  hectares,  or  1-19  78th  of  the  cultivable  soil, 


EFFORT — RESULT.  v  31 

or  45  centiares  for  each  commune.  Suppose  that 
our  domestic  sugar  should  monopolize  the  supply 
of  the  whole  consumption,  we  still  would  have  but 
40,000  hectares,  or  l-6S9th  of  our  cultivable  soil  in 
beets.  ^ 

There  are  two  things  to  consider  in  this  quotation. 
The  facts  and  the  doctrine.  The  facts  go  to  prove 
that  very  little  soil,  capital,  and  labor  would  be 
necessary  for  the  production  of  a  large  quantity  of 
sugar  ;  and  that  each  connnune  of  France  would  be 
abundantly  provided  with  it  by  giving  up  one  hec- 
tare to  its  cultivation.  The  peculiarity  of  the 
doctrine  consists  in  the  looking  upon  this  facilitj^  of 
production  as  an  unfortunate  circumstance,  and  the 
regarding  the  very  fruitfulness  of  this  new  branch 
of  industry  as  a  limitation  to  its  tisefulness. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  here  to  constitute  myself  the 
defender  of  the  beet,  or  the  judge  of  the  singular 
facts  stated  by  Mr.  d'Argout,  but  it  is  worth  the 
trouble  of  examining  into  the  doctrines  of  a  states- 
man, to  whose  judgment  France,  for  a  long  time, 
confided  the  fate  of  her  agriculture  and  her  com- 
merce. 

I  began  by  saying  that  a  variable  proportion 
exists  in  all  industrial  pursuits,  between  the  effort 
and  the  result.     Absolute  imperfection  consists  in 

*  In  justice  to  Mr.  d'Argout  we  should  say  that  xXw  singular  language 
l9  given  by  liim  as  the  argument  ot  the  enemies  of  the  beet.  Hut  he  made 
It  his  own,  and  sanctioned  it  by  the  law  injustificatioa  of  which  he  ad- 
duced it. 


32  ,  SOPHISMS    OF    TROTECTION. 

an  infinite  effort,  without  any  result  ;  absolute  per- 
fection in  an  unlimited  result,  without  any  effort  ; 
and  perfectibility,  in  the  progressive  diminution 
of  the  effort,  compared  with  the  result. 

But  Mr.  d'Argout  tells  us,  that  where  we  looked 
for  life,  we  shall  find  only  death.  The  importance 
of  any  object  of  industry  is,  according  to  him,  in 
direct  proportion  to  its  feebleness.  What,  for 
instance,  can  we  expect  from  the  beet  ?  Do  you 
not  see  that  48,000  hectares  of  land,  with  capital 
and  labor  in  proportion,  will  suffice  to  furnish  sugar 
to  all  France  ?  It  is  then  an  object  of  limited  use- 
fulness^ limited,  be  it  understood,  in  the  work  which 
it  calls  for  ;  and  this  is  the  sole  measure,  according 
to  our  minister,  of  the  usefulness  of  any  pursuit. 
This  usefulness  would  be  much  more  limited  still, 
if,  thanks  to  the  fertility  of  the  soil  or  the  richness 
of  the  beet,  24,000  hectares  would  serve  instead  of 
48,000.  If  there  were  only  needed  twenty  times, 
a  hundred  times  more  soil,  more  capital,  more  labor, 
to  (itUihb  tJie  same  result — oh  !  then  some  hopes 
might  be  founded  upon  this  article  of  industrj'  ;  it 
would  be  worthy  of  the  protection  of  the  state,  for 
it  would  open  a  vast  field  to  national  labor.  But 
to  produce  much  with  little  is  a  bad  example,  and 
the  laws  ought  to  set  things  to  rights. 

What  is  true  with  regard  to  sugar,  cannot  be 
false  M'ith  regard  to  bread.  If  therefore  the  useful- 
ness of  an  object  of  industry  is  to  be  calculated,  not 


EFFORT — RESULT.  33 

by  the  comforts  which  it  can  furnish  with  a  certain 
quantum  of  labor,  but,  on  the  contrary,  by  the 
increase  of  hibor  which  it  requires  in  order  to  furnish 
a  certain  quantity  of  comforts,  it  is  evident  that  we 
ought  to  desire  that  each  acre  of  land  should  pro- 
duce little  corn,  and  that  each  grain  of  corn  should 
furnish  little  nutriment  ;  in  other  words,  that  our 
territory  should  be  sterile  enough  to  require  a  con- 
siderably larger  proportion  of  soil,  capital,  and 
labor  to  nourish  its  population.  The  demand  for 
human  labor  could  not  fail  to  be  in  direct  proportion 
to  this  sterility,  and  then  truly  would  the  wishes  of 
Messrs.  Bugeaud,  Saint  Cn'cq,  Dupin,  and  d' Argout 
be  satisfied  ;  bread  would  be  dear,  work  abundant, 
and  France  would  be  rich — rich  according  to  the 
understanding  of  these  gentlemen. 

All  that  we  could  have  further  to  hope  for  would 
be,  that  human  intellect  might  sink  and  become 
extinct  ;  for,  while  intellect  exists,  it  can  but 
seek  continually  to  increase  the  proportion  of  the  end 
to  the  w,eans  •  of  the  product  to  the  labor.  Indeed  it 
is  in  this  continuous  effort,  and  in  this  alone,  that 
intellect  consists. 

Sisyphism  has  then  been  the  doctrine  of  all  those 
who  have  been  intrusted  with  the  regulation  of  the 
industry  of  our  country.  Tt  would  not  be  just  to 
reproach  them  with  this  ;  for  this  principle  becomes 
that  of  our  ministry,  only  because  it  prevails  in  the 
chambers  ;  it  prevails  in  the  chambers,  only  because 


34  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

it  is  sent  tliere  by  the  electoral  body  *,  and  the  elec- 
toral bod}'  is  imbued  with  it,  only  because  public 
opinion  is  filled  with  it  to  repletion. 

Let  me  repeat  here,  that  I  do  not  accuse  such  men 
as  Messrs.  Bugeaud,  Diipin,  Saint  Cricq,  and  d'Ar- 
gout,  of  being  absolutely  and  always  Sisyphùts. 
Very  certainly  they  are  not  snch  in  their  personal 
transactions  ;  very  certainly  each  one  of  them  will 
procure  for  himself  hy  harder,  what  by  direct  pro- 
duction would  be  attainable  only  at  a  higher  price. 
But  1  maintain  that  they  are  Sisyphists  when  they 
prevent  the  country  from  acting  upon  the  same 
principle. 


lY. 

EQUALIZING    OF   THE    FACILITIES    OF    PEODUCTION. 

It  is  said but,  for  fear  of  being  accused 

of  manufacturing  Sophisms  for  the  mouths  of  the 
protectionists,  I  will  allow  one  of  their  most  able 
reasoners  to  speak  for  himself. 

"  It  is  our  belief  that  protection  should  correspond 
to,  should  be  the  representation  of,  the  difference 
which  exists  between  the  price  of  an  article  of 
iiome  production  and  a   similar  article  of  foreign 

production A  protecting  duty  calculated 

upon  such  a  basis  does  nothing  more  than  secure 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OF    TRODUCTICN.  35 

free  competition  ; free  competition  can  only 

exist  where  there  is  an  equality  in  the  facilities  of 
prodnction.  In  a  horse-race  the  load  which  each 
horse  carries  is  weighed  and  all  advantages  eqnal- 
ized  ;  otherwise  there  conld  be  no  competition.  In 
commerce,  if  one  producer  can  midersell  all  others, 
lie  ceases  to  be  a  competitor  and  becomes  a  monop- 
olist  Suppress  the  protection  which  repre- 
sents the  difference  of  price  according  to  each,  and 
foreign  productions  must  immediately  inundate  and 
obtain  the  monopoly  of  our  market."^ 

"  Every  one  ought  to  wish,  for  his  own  sake  and 
for  that  of  the  community,  that  the  productions  of 
the  country  should  be  protected  against  foreign  com- 
petition, whenever  the  latter  may  he  ahle  to  undersell 
the  former.'''' ^ 

This  argument  is  constantly  recurring  in  all  writ- 
ings of  the  protectionist  school.  It  is  my  intention 
to  make  a  careful  investigation  of  its  merits,  and  I 
must  begin  by  soliciting  the  attention  and  the 
patience  of  the  reader.  I  will  first  examine  into 
the  inequalities  which  depend  upon  natural  causes, 
and  afterwards  into  those  which  are  caused  by 
diversity  of  taxes. 

Here,  as  elsewhere,  we  find  the  theorists  who  favor 
protection,  taking  part  with  the  producer.  Let  us 
consider  the  case  of  the  unfortunate  consumer,  who 


*  M.  !e  Viconito  de  Romanet. 
+  Mathieu  de  Dombasle. 


36  SOPHISIMS    OF    PROTÎXTION. 

seems  to  liave  entirely  escaped  their  attention. 
TJiey  compare  the  field  of  production  to  the  turf. 
But  on  the  turf,  tlie  race  is  at  once  a  tneans  and  an 
end.  The  public  has  no  interest  in  the  struggle, 
independent  of  the  struggle  itself.  When  your 
horses  are  started  in  the  course  with  the  single  object 
of  determining  which  is  the  best  runner,  nothing  is 
more  natural  than  that  their  burdens  should  be 
equalized.  But  if  your  object  were  to  send  an 
important  and  critical  piece  of  intelligence,  could 
you  without  incongruity  place  obstacles  to  the  speed 
of  that  one  whose  fleetness  would  secure  the  best 
means  of  attaining  your  end  ?  And  yet  this  is  your 
course  in  relation  to  industry.  You  forget  the  end 
aimed  at,  which  is  the  well-being  of  the  community. 
But  we  cannot  lead  our  opponents  to  look  at 
things  from  our  point  of  view  ;  let  us  now  take 
theirs  ;  let  us  examine  the  question  as  producers. 
I  will  seek  to  prove — 

1.  That  equalizing  the  facilities  of  production  is 
to  attack  the  foundations  of  all  trade. 

2.  That  it  is  not  true  that  the  labor  of  one 
country  can  be  crushed  by  the  competition  of  more 
favored  climates. 

3.  That,  even  were  this  the  case,  protective 
duties  cannot  equalize  the  facihties  of  production. 

4.  That  freedom  of  trade  equalizes  these  condi- 
tions as  much  as  possi])le  ;  and 

5.  That  the  countries  which  are  the  least  favored 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIKS    OF    I'.ROnUCTIOX.  37 

by  nature  are  those  which  jjrofit  most  ])y  freedom 
of  trade. 

I.  The  eqiuiHzing  of  the  faciKties  of  production 
is  not  only  the  shackHng  of  certain  articles  of  com- 
merce, but  it  is  the  attacking  of  the  system  of 
mutual  exchange  in  its  very  foundation  principle. 
For  this  system  is  based  precisely  upon  the  very 
diversities,  or,  if  the  expression  be  preferred,  npon 
the  inequalities  of  fertility,  climate,  temperature, 
capabilities,  which  the  protectionists  seek  to  render 
null.  If  Guyenne  sends  its  wines  to  Brittany,  and 
Brittany  sends  corn  to  Guyenne,  it  is  because  these 
two  provinces  are,  from  different  circumstances, 
induced  to  turn  their  attention  to  the  production  of 
different  articles.  Is  there  any  other  rule  for  inter- 
national exchanges  ?  Again,  to  bring  against  such 
exchanges  the  very  inequalities  of  condition  which 
excite  and  explain  them,  is  to  attack  them  in  their 
very  cause  of  being.  The  protective  system,  closely 
followed  up,  w^ould  bring  men  to  live  like  snails,  in 
a  state  of  complete  isolation.  In  short,  there  is  not 
one  of  its  Sophisms,  which  if  carried  through  by 
vigorous  deductions,  would  not  end  in  destruction 
and  amiihilation. 

II.  It  is  not  true  that  the  unequal  facility  of  pro- 
duction, in  two  similar  branches  of  industry,  should 
necessarily  cause  the  destruction  of  the  one  which 
is  the  least  fortunate.  On  the  turf,  if  one  horse 
gains  the   prize,  the  other  loses  it  ;  but  when  two 


432987 


38  SOPHISMS    OF    i'liOTKCiroN. 

horses  work  to  produce  any  useful  article,  each  pro- 
duces in  proportion  to  his  strength  ;  and  because 
the  stronger  is  the  more  useful,  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  weaker  is  good  for  nothing.  Wheat  is  cul- 
tivated in  every  department  of  France,  although 
there  are  great  dilferences  in  the  degree  of  fertility 
existing  among  them.  If  it  happens  that  there  be 
one  which  does  not  cultivate  it,  it  is  because,  even 
to  itself,  such  cultivation  is  not  useful.  Analogy 
will  show  us,  that  under  the  influence  of  an- 
unshackled  trade,  notwithstanding  rjmilar  differ- 
ences, wheat  would  be  produced  in  every  kingdom 
of  Europe  ;  and  if  any  one  were  induced  to  abandon 
entirely  the  cultivation  of  it,  this  would  only  be, 
because  it  would  he  her  intei^est  to  employ  otherwise 
her  lands,  her  capital,  and  her  labor.  And  why 
does  not  the  fertility  of  one  department  paralyze 
the  agriculture  of  a  neighboring  and  less  favored 
one  ?  Because  the  phenomena  of  political  economy 
have  a  suppleness,  an  elasticity,  and,  so  to  speak,  a 
self-levelling  power,  which  seems  to  escape  the  at- 
tention of  the  school  of  protectionists.  They  accuse 
us  of  being  theorists,  but  it  is  themselves  who  are 
theorists  to  a  supreme  degree,  if  being  theoretic  con- 
sists in  building  up  systems  upon  the  experience  of 
a  single  fact,  instead  of  profiting  by  the  experience 
of  a  series  of  facts.  In  the  above  example,  it  is  the 
difference  in  the  value  of  lands,  which  compensates 
for  the  difference  in  their  fertility.     Your  held  pro- 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OF    PRODUCTION.  39 

duces  tlireo  times  as  mucli  as  mine.  Yes.  But  it 
has  cost  you  three  times  as  mucli,  aud  therefore  I  can 
still  compete  with  you  :  this  is  the  sole  mystery. 
And  observe  how  the  advantage  on  one  point  leads 
to  disadvantage  on  the  other.  Precisely  because 
your  soil  is  more  fruitful,  it  is  more  dear.  It  is  not 
accidentally  but  necessarily  that  the  equilibrium  is 
established,  or  at  least  inclines  to  establish  itself  ; 
and  can  it  be  denied  that  perfect  freedom  in 
exchanges  is,  of  all  the  systems,  the  one  which 
favors  this  tendency  ? 

I  have  cited  an  agricultural  example  ;  I  might 
as  easily  have  taken  one  from  any  trade.  There 
are  tailors  at  Quimper,  but  that  does  not  prevent 
tailors  from  being  in  Paris  also,  although  the  latter 
have  to  pay  a  much  higher  rent,  as  well  as  higher 
price  for  furniture,  workmen,  and  food.  But  their 
customers  are  sufficiently  numerous  not  only  to  re- 
establish the  balance,  but  also  to  make  it  lean  on 
their  side. 

When  therefore  the  question  is  about  equalizing 
the  advantages  of  labor,  it  would  be  well  to  consider 
whether  the  natural  freedom  of  exchange  is  not  the 
best  umpire. 

This  self-levelling  faculty  of  political  phenomena 
is  so  important,  and  at  the  same  time  so  well  calcu- 
lated to  cause  us  to  admire  the  providential  wisdom 
which  presides  over  the  equalizing  government  of 


4:0  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTECTION. 

Bociety,  that  I  must  ask  permission  a  little  longer, 
to  turn  to  it  the  attention  of  the  reader. 

The  protectionists  say,  Such  a  nation  lias  the 
advantage  over  us,  in  being  able  to  procure  cheaply, 
coal,  iron,  machinery,  capital  ;  it  is  impossible  for 
us  to  compete  with  it. 

We  must  examine  the  proposition  under  other 
aspects.  For  the  j^resent,  I  stop  at  the  question, 
whether,  when  an  advantage  and  a  disadvantage  are 
placed  in  juxtaposition,  they  do  not  bear  in  them- 
selves, the  former  a  descending,  the  latter  an  ascend- 
ing power,  which  must  end  by  placing  them  in  a 
just  equilil)rium. 

Let  us  su])pose  the  counti-ies  A  and  B.  A  has 
every  advantage  over  B  ;  you  thence  conclude  that 
labor  will  be  concentrated  upon  A,  while  B  must  be 
abandoned.  A,  you  say,  sells  much  more  than  it 
buys  ;  B  l^uys  more  than  it  sells.  I  might  dispute 
this,  but  I  will  meet  you  upon  your  own  ground. 

In  the  hypothesis,  labor,  being  in  great  demand 
in  A,  soon  rises  in  value  ;  while  labor,  iron,  coal, 
lands,  food,  capital,  all  being  little  sought  after  in  B, 
soon  fall  in  price. 

Again  :  A  being  always  selling  and  B  always 
buying,  cash  passes  from  B  to  A.  It  is  abundant 
in  A — very  scarce  in  B. 

But  where  there  is  abundance  of  cash,  it  follows 
that  in  all  purchases  a  large  proportion  of  it  will  be 
needed.     Then  in  A,  real  dearness,  which  proceeds 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OF    I'KODDUTION.  41 

from  a  very  active  demand,  is  added  to  nominal 
dearness^  tlie  consequence  of  a  supera])undance  of 
the  precious  metals. 

Scarcity  of  money  implies  that  little  is  necessary 
for  each  purchase.  Then  in  B,  a  noviinal  cJieapness 
is  combined  with  real  cheapness. 

Under  tliese  circumstances,  industry  will  have 
the  strongest  possible  motives  for  deserting  A,  to 
establish  itself  in  B. 

Now,  to  return  to  what  would  be  the  true  course 
of  things.  As  the  progress  of  such  events  is  always 
gradual,  industry  from  its  nature  being  opposed  to 
sudden  transits,  let  us  suppose  that,  without  waiting 
the  extreme  point,  it  will  have  gradually  divided 
itself  between  A  and  B,  according  to  the  laws  of 
supply  and  demand  ;  that  is  to  say,  according  to 
the  laws  of  justice  and  usefulness. 

I  do  not  advance  an  empty  liypothesis  when  I 
say,  that  were  it  possible  that  industry  shoidd  con- 
centrate itself  upon  a  single  point,  there  must,  from 
its  nature,  arise  spontaneously,  and  in  its  midst,  an 
irresistible  power  of  decentralization. 

We  will  (piote  the  words  of  a  manufacturer  to  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  at  Manchester  (the  figures 
brought  into  his  demonstration  are  suppressed)  : 

"  Formerly  we  exported  goods  ;  this  exportation 
gave  way  to  that  of  thread  for  the  manufacture  of 
goods  ;  later,  instead  of  thread,  we  exported  ma- 
chinevy  for  the  making  of  thread  ;  then  capital  for 


42  SOI'HISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

the  construction  of  macliinerj  ;  and  lastly,  workmen 
and  talent,  which  are  the  source  of  capital.  All 
these  elements  of  labor  have,  one  after  the  other, 
transferred  themselves  to  other  points,  where  their 
profits  were  increased,  and  where  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence being  less  difficult  to  obtain,  life  is  main- 
tained at  a  less  cost.  There  are  at  present  to  be 
seen  in  Prussia,  Austria,  Saxony,  Switzerland,  and 
Italy,  immense  manufacturing  establishments, 
founded  entirely  by  English  capital,  worked  by 
English  labor,  and  directed  by  English  talent," 

We  may  here  perceive  that  Nature,  or  rather 
Providence,  with  more  wisdom  and  foresight  than 
the  narrow  rigid  system  of  the  protectionists  can 
suppose,  does  not  permit  the  concentration  of  labor, 
the  monopoly  of  advantages,  from  which  they  draw 
their  arguments  as  from  an  absolute  and  irremedia- 
ble fact.  It  has,  by  means  as  simple  as  they  arc 
infallible,  j^rovided  for  dispersion,  diffusion,  mutual 
dependence,  and  simultaneous  progress  ;  all  of 
which  your  restrictive  laws  paralyze  as  much  as  is 
in  their  power,  by  their  tendency  toward  the  isola- 
tion of  nations.  By  this  means  they  render  much 
more  decided  the  differences  existing  in  the  condi- 
tions of  production  ;  they  check  the  self-levelling 
power  of  industry,  prevent  fusion  of  interests,  and 
fence  in  each  nation  within  its  own  peculiar  advan- 
tages and  disadvantages. 

III.   To  say  that  by  a  protective  law  the  condi- 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OF    PRODUCTION.  43 

tions  of  production  are  equalized,  is  to  disguise  an 
error  under  false  terms.  It  is  not  true  that  an  im- 
port duty  equalizes  the  conditions  of  production. 
These  remain  after  the  imposition  of  the  duty  just 
as  they  were  before.  The  most  that  the  law  can  do 
is  to  equalize  the  conditions  of  sale.  If  it  should  be 
said  that  I  am  playing  upon  words,  I  retort  the  ac- 
cusation upon  my  adversaries.  It  is  for  them  to 
prove  that  jn'oduction  and  sale  are  synonymous 
terms,  which  if  they  cannot  do,  I  have  a  right  to 
accuse  them,  if  not  of  playing  upon  words,  at  least 
of  confounding  them. 

Let  me  be  permitted  to  exemplify  my  idea. 

Suppose  that  several  Parisian  speculators  should 
determine  to  devote  themselves  to  the  production  of 
oranges.  They  know  that  the  oranges  of  Portugal 
can  be  sold  in  Paris  at  ten  centimes,  whilst  on  account 
of  the  boxes,  hot-houses,  etc. ,  which  are  necessary  to 
ward  against  the  severity  of  our  climate,  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  raise  tliem  at  less  than  a  franc  apiece.  They 
accordingly  demand  a  duty  of  ninety  centimes  upon 
Portugal  oranges.  With  the  help  of  this  duty,  say 
they,  the  conditions  of  pt'oduction  will  be  equal- 
ized. The  legislative  body,  yielding  as  usual  to 
this  argument,  imposes  a  duty  of  ninety  centimes 
on  each  foreign  orange. 

Now  I  say  that  the  relative  conditions  of  produc- 
tion are  in  no  wise  changed.  The  law  can  take  noth- 
ing from  the  heat  of  the  sun  in  Lisbon,  nor  from  the 


44  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTECTION. 

severity  of  the  frosts  in  Paris.  Oranges  continuing 
to  mature  themselves  naturally  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tagus,  and  artificially  upon  those  of  the  Seine,  must 
continue  to  require  for  their  production  much  more 
labor  on  the  latter  than  the  former.  The  law  can 
only  equalize  the  conditions  of  sale.  It  is  evident 
that  while  the  Portuguese  sell  their  oranges  at  a 
franc  a  piece,  the  ninety  centimes  which  go  to  pay 
the  tax  are  taken  from  the  French  consumer. 
IS^ow  look  at  the  whimsicality  of  the  result.  Upon 
each  Portuguese  orange,  the  country  loses  nothing  ; 
for  the  ninety  centimes  which  the  consumer  pays 
to  satisfy  the  tax,  enter  into  the  treasury.  There 
is  improper  distribution,  but  no  loss.  Upon  each 
French  orange  consumed,  there  will  be  about 
ninet}'  centimes  lost  ;  for  while  the  buyer  very 
certainly  loses  them,  the  seller  just  as  certainly 
does  not  gain  them,  for  even  according  to  the 
hypothesis,  he  will  receive  only  the  price  of  pi*o- 
duction.  I  will  leave  it  to  the  protectionists  to 
draw  their  conclusion. 

TV.  I  have  laid  some  stress  npon  this  distinction 
between  the  conditions  of  production  and  those  of 
sale  which  perhaps  the  prohibitionists  may  consider 
as  paradoxical,  because  it  leads  me  on  to  what  they 
will  consider  as  a  still  stranger  paradox.  This  is  :  If 
you  really  wish  to  equalize  the  facilities  of  produc- 
tion, leave  trade  free. 

This  may  surprise  the  protectionists  ;  but  let  mo 


EQUALIZIXG    FACILITIE'S    OF    PRODUCTION.  45 

entreat  tlieni  to  listen,  if  it  be  only  through  curiosity, 
to  the  end  of  my  argument.  It  shall  not  be  long.  I 
will  now  take  it  up  where  we  left  off. 

If  we  suppose  for  the  moment  that  the  common 
and  daily  profits  of  each  Frenchman  amount  to  one 
franc,  it  will  indisputably  follow  that  to  produce  an 
orange  by  direct  labor  in  France,  one  day's  work, 
or  its  equivalent,  will  be  requisite  ;  whilst  to  pro- 
duce the  cost  of  a  Portuguese  orange,  only  one  tenth 
of  this  day's  labor  is  required  ;  which  means  simply 
this,  that  the  sun  does  at  Lisbon  what  labor  does  at 
Paris.  Now  is  it  not  evident,  that  if  I  can  produce 
an  orange,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  the  means  of 
buying  it,  with  one  tenth  of  a  day's  labor,  I  am 
placed  exactly  in  the  same  condition  as  the  Portu- 
guese producer  himself,  ofcepting  the  expense  of 
the  transportation  ?  It  is  then  certain  that  freedom 
of  commerce  equalizes  the  conditions  of  production 
direct  or  indirect,  as  much  as  it  is  possible  to  equal- 
ize them  ;  for  it  leaves  but  the  one  inevitable 
différence,  that  of  transportation. 

I  will  add  that  free  trade  equalizes  also  the  facili- 
ties for  attaining  enjoyments,  comforts,  and  general 
consumption  ;  the  last  an  object  which  is,  it  would 
seem,  quite  forgotten,  and  which  is  nevertheless  all 
important  ;  since  consumption  is  the  main  object  of 
all  our  industrial  eiïorts.  Thanks  to  freedom  of 
trade,  we  would  enjoy  here  the  results  of  the  Por- 
tuguese sun,  as  well  as  Portugal  itself  ;  and  the  in- 


46  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

habitants  of  Havre  would  have  in  their  reach,  as 
■well  as  those  of  London,  and  with  the  same  facili- 
ties, the  advantages  wliich  nature  has  in  a  mineral- 
ogical  point  of  view  conferred  npon  Newcastle. 

The  protectionists  may  suppose  me  in  a  paradoxi- 
cal humor,  for  I  go  farther  still.  I  say,  and  I  sincere- 
ly believe,  that  if  any  two  countries  are  placed  in  un- 
equal circumstances  as  to  advantages  of  production, 
iJiO't  one  of  the  two  which  is  the  least  favored  hy 
nature  will  gain  most  hy  freedom  of  cominerce. 
To  prove  this,  I  shall  be  obliged  to  turn  somewhat 
aside  from  the  form  of  reasoning  which  belongs  to 
this  work,  I  will  do  so,  however  ;  first,  because 
the  question  in  discussion  turns  upon  this  point  ; 
and  again,  because  it  will  give  me  the  opportunity 
of  exhibiting  a  law  of  political  economy  of  the 
highest  importance,  and  which,  well  understood, 
seems  to  me  to  be  destined  to  lead  back  to  this 
science  all  those  sects  which,  in  our  days,  are  seek- 
ing in  the  land  of  chimeras  that  social  harmony 
which  they  have  been  unable  to  discover  in  nature. 
I  speak  of  the  law  of  consumption,  which  the 
majority  of  political  economists  may  well  be  re- 
proached with  having  too  much  neglected. 

Consumption  is  the  end,  the  final  cause,  of  all  tlie 
phenomena  of  political  economy,  and,  consequently, 
in  it  is  found  their  final  solution. 

]S^o  effect,  whether  favorable  or  unfavorable,  can 
be  arrested  permanently  upon  the  producer.     The 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIKS    OF    PliODUCTION.  47 

advantiiges  and  the  disadvantap:es,  which,  from  his 
rehitions  to  nature  and  to  society,  arc  liis,  both 
equally  pass  gradually  from  him,  with  an  almost 
insensible  tendency  to  be  absorbed  and  fused  into 
the  comnmnity  at  large  ;  the  community  considered 
as  consumers.  This  is  an  admirable  law,  alike  in 
its  cause  and  its  effects,  and  he  who  shall  succeed 
in  making  it  well  understood  will  have  a  right  to 
say,  "  I  have  not,  in  my  passage  through  the  M'orld, 
forgotten  to  pay  my  tribute  to  society." 

Every  circumstance  which  favors  the  work  of 
production  is  of  course  hailed  with  joy  by  the  pro- 
ducer, for  its  immediate  effect  is  to  enable  him  to 
render  greater  services  to  the  community,  and  to 
exact  from  it  a  greater  remuneration.  Every  cir- 
cumstance which  injures  production  nnist  equally 
be  the  source  of  uneasiness  to  him  ;  for  its  immé- 
diate effect  is  to  diminish  his  services,  and  conse- 
quently his  remuneration.  This  is  a  fortunate  and 
necessary  law  of  nature.  The  immediate  good  or 
evil  of  favorable  or  unfavorable  circumstances  must 
fall  upon  the  producer,  in  order  to  influence  him 
invincibly  to  seek  the  one  and  to  avoid  the  other. 

Again,  Avhen  a  workman  succeeds  in  his  labor, 
the  immediate  benefit  of  this  success  is  received  by 
him.  This  again  is  necessary,  to  determine  him  to 
devote  his  attention  to  it.  It  is  also  just  ;  because 
it  is  just  that  an  effort  crowned  with  success  should 
bring  its  own  reward. 


48  SOPIIIPMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Rnt  these  effects,  good  and  bad,  altlioiisrli  perma- 
nent in  themselves,  are  not  so  as  regards  tlie  pro- 
ducer. If  thej  had  been  so,  a  principle  of  proi^rcs- 
sive  and  consequently  infinite  inequalitu  would 
have  been  introduced  among  men.  This  good  and 
this  evil  both  therefore  pass  on,  to  become  ab- 
sorbed in  the  general  destinies  of  hunumity. 

How  does  tliis  come  about  ?  1  will  try  to  make 
it  understood  by  some  examples. 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  thirteentli  century.  Men 
who  gave  themselves  up  to  the  business  of  copying 
received  for  this  service  a  reraurtieration  I'egulated  hy 
the  general  rate  of  p'^ojits.  Among  them  is  found 
one  who  seeks  and  linds  the  means  of  multiplying 
rapidly  copies  of  the  same  work.  He  invents  print- 
ing. The  first  effect  of  this  is  that  the  individual 
is  enriched,  while  many  more  are  impoverished. 
At  the  first  view,  wonderful  as  the  discovery  is, 
one  hesitates  in  deciding  whether  it  is  not  more  in- 
jurious than  useful.  It  seems  to  have  introduced 
into  the  world,  as  I  said  above,  an  element  of  in- 
finite inequality.  Guttenberg  makes  large  profits 
by  this  invention,  and  perfects  the  invention  by  the 
profits,  until  all  other  copyists  are  ruined.  As  for 
the  public, — the  consumer, — it  gains  but  little,  for 
Guttenberg  takes  care  to  lower  the  price  of  books 
only  just  so  much  as  is  necessary  to  undersell  all 
rivals. 

But  the  great  Mind  which  jiut  harmony  into  the 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OF    PRODUCTION.  40 

movements  of  celestial  bodies  could  also  give  it  to 
the  internal  mechanism  of  society.  We  will  see  the 
advantages  of  this  invention  escaping  from  the  iji- 
dividual,  to  become  forever  the  common  patrimony 
of  mankind. 

The  process  finally  becomes  known.  Gnttenberg 
is  no  longer  alone  in  his  art  ;  others  imitate  him. 
Their  profits  are  at  first  considerable.  They  are 
recompensed  for  being  the  first  who  make  the  eiïort 
to  imitate  the  processes  of  the  newly  invented  art. 
This  again  was  necet^sary,  in  order  that  they  might 
be  induced  to  the  effort,  and  thus  forward  the  great 
and  final  result  to  which  we  a])proach.  They  gain 
much  ;  but  they  gain  less  than  the  inventor,  for  com- 
petition has  commenced  its  work.  The  price  of 
books  now  continually  decreases.  The  gains  of  the 
imitators  diminish  in  proportion  as  the  invention 
becomes  older  ;  and  in  the  same  proportion  imitation 
becomes  less  meritorious.  Soon  the  new  object  of 
industry  attains  its  normal  condition  ;  in  other  words, 
the  remuneration  of  printers  is  no  longer  an  exception 
to  the  general  rules  of  remuneration,  and,  like  that 
of  copyists  formerly,  it  is  only  regulated  hj  the  gen- 
eral rate  of  profits.  Here  then  the  producer,  as  such, 
holds  only  the  old  position.  The  discovery,  how- 
ever, has  been  made  ;  the  saving  of  time,  labor, 
effort,  for  a  fixed  result,  for  a  certain  number  of 
volumes,  is  realized.  But  in  what  is  tliis  manifest- 
ed ?     In  the  clieaj)  price  of  books.      For  the  gooa 


50  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

of  whom  ?  For  the  good  of  the  consumer, — of 
society, — of  liumaiiity.  Printers,  having  no  longer 
any  peculiar  merit,  receive  no  longer  a  peculiar 
remuneration.  As  men, — as  consumers, — they  no 
doubt  participate  in  the  advantages  which  the  inven- 
tion confers  upon  the  community  ;  hut  that  is  all. 
As  printers,  as  producers,  they  are  placed  upon  the 
ordinary  footing  of  ail  other  producers.  Society 
pays  them  for  their  labor,  and  not  for  the  usefulness 
of  the  invention.  That  has  become  a  gratuitous 
benefit,  a  common  lieritagc  to  mankind. 

"What  has  been  said  of  printing  can  be  extended 
to  every  agent  for  the  advancement  of  labor  ;  from 
the  nail  and  the  mallet,  up  to  the  locomotive  and 
the  electric  telegraph.  Society  enjoys  all,  by  the 
abundance  of  its  use,  its  consumption  ;  and  it  enjoys 
all  gratuitously.  For  as  their  effect  is  to  diminisli 
prices,  it  is  evident  that  just  so  much  of  the  price 
as  is  taken  off  by  their  intervention,  renders  the 
pi'oduction  in  so  far  gratuitous.  There  only  remains 
the  actual  labor  of  man  to  be  paid  for  ;  and  the  re- 
mainder, which  is  the  result  of  the  invention,  is  sub- 
tracted ;  at  least  after  the  invention  has  run  through 
the  cycle  which  I  have  just  described  as  its  destined 
course.  I  send  for  a  workman  ;  he  brings  a  saw 
with  him  ;  1  pay  him  two  francs  for  his  day's  labor, 
and  he  saws  me  twenty-five  boards.  If  the  saw  had 
not  been  invented,  he  would  perhaps  not  have  been 
alue  to  make  one  board,  and  I  would  have  paid  him 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OF    PRODUCTION.  51 

tlie  same  for  his  day's  labor.  Tlie  usefulness  tlien 
of  the  saw,  is  for  me  a  p^ratuitons  gift  of  nature,  or 
ratlier  it  is  a  portion  of  the  inheritance  wliich,  in 
common  witli  mj  brotlier  men,  I  have  received 
from  tlie  genius  of  my  ancestors.  J.  have  two  work- 
men in  my  Held  ;  the  one  directs  the  handle  of  a 
plough,  the  other  that  of  a  spade.  The  result  of 
their  day's  labor  is  very  different,  but  the  price  is 
the  same,  because  the  remuneration  is  proportioned, 
not  to  the  usefulness  of  the  result,  but  to  the  effort, 
the  labor  given  to  attain  it. 

1  invoke  the  patience  of  the  reader,  and  l)eg  him 
to  belie \'e,  that  I  have  not  lost  sight  of  free  trade  : 
I  entreat  him  only  to  remember  the  conclusion  at 
which  I  have  arrived  :  Reynuneration  is  not  j9?'0- 
portio7ied  to  the  usefulness  of  the  articles  hrought 
hy  the  producer  into  the  market,  hut  to  the  lahor.^ 

I  have  so  far  taken  my  examples  from  human  in- 
ventions, but  will  now  go  on  to  speak  of  natural 
advantages. 

In  every  article  of  production,  nature  and  man 
must  concur.  But  the  portion  of  nature  is  always 
gratuitous.  Only  so  much  of  the  usefulness  of  an 
article  as  is  the  result  of  human  labor  becomes  the 
object  of  mutual  exchange,  and  consequently  of 
remuneration.      The  remuneration  varies  much,  no 

*  It  is  true  that  labor  floes  not  receive  a  uniform  remuneration  ;  because 
iabor  18  more  or  less  intense,  dangerous,  skilful,  etc.  Compelition  estab- 
lishes for  each  category  a  price  current  ;  and  it  is  of  this  variable  price  that 
1  speak 


52  SOl'lIISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

doubt,  ill  proportion  to  tlie  intensity  of  tlio  l;il)or, 
of  the  skill  wliicli  it  requires,  of  its  being  à  propos 
to  tlie  demand  of  the  d;iy,  of  the  need  wliich  exists 
for  it,  of  the  momentary  absence  of  competition,  etc. 
But  it  is  not  the  less  true  in  principle,  that  the 
assistance  received  from  natural  laws,  which  belongs 
to  all,  counts  for  nothing  in  the  price. 

We  do  not  "[lay  for  the  air  we  breathe,  although 
so  useful  to  us  that  we  could  not  live  two  minutes 
without  it.  We  do  not  pay  for  it,  because  Nature 
furnishes  it  without  the  intervention  of  man's  labor. 
But  if  we  wish  to  separate  one  of  the  gases  which 
compose  it,  for  instance,  to  fill  a  balloon,  we  must 
take  some  trouble  and  labor  ;  or  if  another  takes  it 
for  us,  we  must  give  him  an  equivalent  in  something 
which  will  have  cost  us  the  trouble  of  production. 
From  wliich  we  see  that  the  exchange  is  between 
troubles,  efforts,  labors.  It  is  certainly  not  for  hy- 
drogen gas  that  I  pay,  for  this  is  everywhere  at 
my  disposal,  but  for  the  work  that  it  has  been  neces- 
sary to  accomplish  in  order  to  disengage  it  ;  work 
which  I  have  been  spared,  and  which  I  must  refund. 
If  I  am  told  that  there  are  other  things  to  pay  for, 
as  expenses,  materials,  apparatus,  I  answer,  that  still 
in  these  things  it  is  the  work  that  I  pay  for.  The 
price  of  the  coal  employed  is  only  the  representation 
of  the  labor  necessary  to  dig  and  transport  it. 

We  do  not  pay  for  the  light  of  the  sun,  because 
Nature  alone  gives  it  to  us.     But  we  pay  for  the 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OF    PKODUCTION.  53 

liglit  of  gas,  tallow,  oil,  wax,  because  here  is  labor 
to  be  remunerated  ; — and  remark,  that  it  is  so  en- 
tirely labor  and  not  utility  to  which  remuneration 
is  propoi'tioned,  that  it  may  well  happen  that  one  of 
these  means  of  lii^hting,  while  it  may  be  much 
more  effective  than  another,  may  still  cost  less. 
To  cause  this,  it  is  only  necessary  that  less  human 
labor  should  be  required  to  furnish  it. 

When  the  water-carrier  comes  to  supply  my  house, 
were  I  to  pay  him  in  proportion  to  the  absolute  utility 
of  the  water,  ray  whole  fortune  w^ould  not  be  sufS- 
cient.  But  I  pay  him  only  for  the  trouble  he  has 
taken.  If  he  requires  more,  I  can  get  others  to  fur- 
nish it,  or  finally  go  and  get  it  myself.  The  water 
itself  is  not  the  subject  of  our  bargain  ;  but  the 
labor  taken  to  get  the  water.  This  point  of  view 
is  so  important,  and  the  consequences  that  I  am  going 
to  draw  fro;n  it  so  clear,  as  regards  the  freedom  of 
international  exchanges,  that  I  will  still  elucidate 
my  idea  by  a  few  more  examples. 

The  alimentary  substance  contained  in  potatoes 
docs  not  cost  us  very  dear,  because  a  great  deal  of 
it  IS  attainable  with  little  work.  We  pay  more  for 
wheat,  because  to  produce  it  Nature  requires  more 
labor  from  man.  It  is  evident  that  if  Nature  did  for 
the  latter  what  she  does  for  the  former,  their  prices 
would  tend  to  the  same  level.  It  is  impossible  that 
the  producer  of  wheat  should  permanently  gain 
more  than  the  producer  of  potatoes.  The  law  of 
comoetition  cannot  allow  it. 


54  Sf)riIISIVIS    OF    TROTECTION. 

If  by  a  liappy  niiniclc  the  fertility  of  all  arable 
lands  were  to  be  increased,  it  would  not  be  the 
agriculturist,  but  tlic  consumer,  who  would  profit 
by  this  phenomenon  ;  for  the  result  of  it  would  be 
abundance  and  cheapness.  There  would  be  less 
labor  incorporated  into  an  acre  of  grain,  and  the 
agriculturist  would  be  therefore  obliged  to  exchange 
it  for  less  labor  incorporated  into  some  other  article. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  the  fertility  of  the  soil  were  sud- 
denly to  deteriorate,  the  share  of  Nature  in  produc- 
tion would  be  less,  that  of  labor  greater,  and  the 
result  would  be  higher  prices.  I  am  right  then  in 
saying  that  it  is  in  consumption,  in  mankind,  that 
at  length  all  political  phenomena  find  their  solution. 
As  long  as  we  fail  to  follow  their  effects  to  this 
point,  and  look  only  at  imraediate  effects,  which  act 
but  upon  individual  men  or  classes  of  men  an  pro- 
ducers^ we  know  nothing  more  of  political  economy 
than  the  quack  does  of  medicine,  when,  instead  of 
following  the  effects  of  a  prescription  in  its  action 
upon  the  whole  system,  he  satisties  himself  with 
knowing  how  it  affects  the  palate  and  the  throat. 

The  tropical  regions  are  very  favorable  to  the  pro- 
duction of  sugar  and  coffee  ;  that  is  to  say,  Nature 
does  most  of  the  business  and  leaves  but  little  for 
labor  to  accomplish.  But  who  reaps  the  advantage 
of  this  liberality  of  Nature  ?  Not  these  regions, 
for  they  are  forced  by  competition  to  receive  simply 
remuneration  for  their  labor.     It  is  mankind  who  is 


EQUALIZING    FACILITIES    OK    PRODUCTION.  55 

the  «Trainer  ;  for  the  result  of  this  liberality  is  clieap- 
ne.8s^  and  cheapness  belongs  to  the  world. 

Here  in  the  temperate  zone,  we  find  coal  and  ii-on 
ore,  on  tlie  surface  of  tlie  soil  ;  we  Jiave  but  to  stoop 
and  take  them.  At  first,  1  grant,  the  immediate 
inhabitants  i)ro{it  by  this  fortunate  circumstance. 
But  soon  comes  com]:)etition,  and  the  price  of  coal 
and  iron  falls,  until  this  gift  of  Nature  becomes 
gratuitous  to  all,  and  human  labor  is  only  paid 
according  to  the  general  rate  of  profits. 

Thus  natural  advantages,  like  improvements  in 
the  process  of  production,  are,  or  liave  a  constant 
tendency  to  beaome,  under  the  law  of  com]:)etition, 
the  common  and  gratuitous  patrimony  of  consumers, 
of  society,  of  mankind.  Countries  therefore  which 
do  not  enjoy  these  advantages,  must  gain  by  com- 
merce with  those  which  do  ;  because  the  exchanges 
of  commerce  are  between  labor  and  labor  /  subtrac- 
tion being  made  of  all  the  natural  advantages  wliich 
are  combined  with  these  labors  ;  and  it  is  evidently 
the  most  favored  countries  which  can  incorporate 
into  a  given  labor  the  largest  proportion  of  tliese 
oiatural  advantages.  Their  produce  representing  less 
labor,  receives  less  recompense  ;  in  other  words,  is 
cheaper.  If  then  all  the  liberality  of  Nature  results 
111  ciieaj)ness,  it  is  evidently  not  the  producing,  but 
the  consuming  c(juntry,  winch  profits  by  her  benefits. 

Hence  we  may  see  the  enormous  absurdity  of  the 
consuming  country,  winch  rejects  produce  precisely 


56  SOPHISMS    OK    riiOTECTION. 

because  it  is  cheap.  It  is  as  tiiou<ih  we  sliould  say  : 
"■  We  vvnll  liave  nothing  of  that  which  Nature  gives 
yon.  You  ask  of  us  an  effort  equal  to  two,  in  order 
to  furnish  ourselves  with  articles  only  attainable  at 
home  by  an  effort  equal  to  four.  You  can  do  it 
because  with  you  Nature  does  half  the  work.  But 
we  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  ;  we  will  wait 
till  your  climate,  becoming  more  inclement,  forces 
you  to  ask  of  us  a  labor  equal  to  four,  and  then  we 
can  treat  with  you  upon  an  equal  footing .'' ' 

A  is  a  favored  country  ;  B  is  maltreated  by 
Nature.  Mutual  traffic  then  is  advantageous  to  both, 
but  principally  to  B,  because  tlie  exchange  is  not 
between  tUility  and  utility,  but  between  value  and 
value.  Now  A  furnishes  a  greater  utility  in  a  simi- 
lar value,  because  the  utility  of  any  article  includes 
at  once  what  Nature  and  wliat  labor  have  done  ; 
whereas  the  valiie  of  it  only  corresponds  to  the  por- 
tion accomplislied  by  labor.  B  then  makes  an 
entirely  advantageous  bargain  ;  for  by  simply  paying 
the  producer  from  A  for  his  labor,  it  receives  in 
return  not  only  the  results  of  that  labor,  but  in 
addition  there  is  thrown  in  whatever  may  have 
accrued  from  the  superior  bounty  of  Nature. 

We  will  lay  down  the  general  rule. 

Traffic  is  an  exchange  of  vahies  j  and  as  value  is 
reduced  by  competition  to  tlie  simple  representation 
of  labor,  traffic  is  the  exchange  of  eqnal  labors. 
Whatever  Nature  has  done  toward  the  production 


î:ql'alizing  facilities  ok   production.         57 

of  the  articles  exchanged,  's  given  on  both  sides 
gratuitously  ;  from  whence  it  necessarily  follows, 
that  the  most  advantageous  commerce  is  transacted 
with  tliose  countries  wliich  are  the  most  favored  by 
Nature. 

The  theory  of  which  I  have  attempted,  in  this 
chapter,  to  trace  the  outlines,  vvould  recpiiro  great 
developments.  But  perhaps  the  attentive  i^eader 
will  have  perceived  in  it  the  fruitful  seed  which  is 
destined  in  its  future  growtli  to  smother  Protection, 
at  once  with  Founerism,  Saint  Simonism,  Common- 
ism,  and  the  various  other  schools  whose  object  is 
to  exclude  the  law  of  Competition  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world.  Competition,  no  doubt,  consid- 
ering man  as  producer,  must  often  interfere  w^itli 
his  individual  and  immédiate  interests.  But  if  we 
consider  the  great  object  of  all  labor,  the  universal 
good,  in  a  word,  Consiimption,  we  cannot  fail  to  find 
that  Competition  is  to  the  moral  world  what  the  law 
of  equilibrium  is  to  the  material  one.  It  is  the 
foundation  of  true  Commonisni,  of  true  Socialism, 
of  the  equality  of  comforts  and  condition,  so  much 
sought  after  in  our  day  ;  and  if  so  many  sincere 
reformers,  so  many  earnest  friends  to  tlie  public 
rights,  seek  to  reacli  their  end  by  commercial  legisla- 
tion^ it  is  only  because  they  do  not  yet  understand 
commercial  fi'eedoia. 


58  SOPHISMS    OF    I'KOTECTION. 


OUR    PRODUCTIONS    ARK    OVERLOADED    WTTEI    TAXES. 

Tins  is  but  a  new  wordin<ï  of  tlic  last  Sopliisin. 
The  demand  made  is,  that  the  foreiiÇD  article  should 
be  taxed,  in  order  to  neutralize  the  effects  of  the 
tax,  which  weiii,lis  down  national  produce.  \t  is 
still  then  but  the  question  of  crpializino;  the  facili- 
ties of  production.  We  liave  but  to  say  that  the 
tax  is  an  artificial  obstacle,  which  has  exactly  the 
Game  effect  as  a  natural  obstacle,  i.e.  the  increasinjsf 
of  the  price.  If  this  increase  is  so  g^reat  that  there 
is  more  loss  in  producing  tlie  article  in  question 
than  in  attracting  it  from  foreign  parts  by  the  pro- 
duction of  an  equiv^alcnt  value,  let  it  alone.  Indi- 
vidual interest  will  soon  learn  to  choose  the  lesser 
of  two  evils.  I  might  refer  the  reader  to  the 
preceding  demonstration  for  an  answer  to  this 
Sophism  ;  but  it  is  one  which  recurs  so  often  in  the 
complaints  and  the  petitions,  I  had  almost  said  the 
demands,  of  the  protectionist  school,  tliat  it  deserves 
a  special  discussion. 

If  the  tax  in  question  should  be  one  of  a  special 
kind,  directed  against  fixed  articles  of  production, 
I  agree  that  it  is  ]ierfectly  reasonable  that  foreign 
])rodu('e  should  be  subjected  to  it.  For  instance,  it 
would  be  absurd  to  free  foreign  salt  from  impost 


I 


PRODUCTIONS    OVP:RLOADEr)    WITH    TAXES.  59 

duty  ;  not  that  in  an  economical  point  of  view 
France  would  lose  aiiythino;  by  it  ;  on  the  contrary, 
whatever  may  be  said,  principles  are  invariable,  and 
P'rancc  would  '^ain  by  it,  as  she  must  always  gain 
by  avoiding  an  obstacle  whether  natural  or  artifi- 
cial. But  here  the  obstacle  has  been  raised  with  a 
fiscal  object.  It  is  necessary  that  this  end  should 
be  attained  ;  and  if  foreign  salt  were  to  l)e  sold  in 
our  market  free  from  duty,  tlie  treasury  would  not 
receive  its  revenue,  and  would  be  obliged  to  seek 
it  from  sometliing  else.  There  would  be  evident 
inconsistency  in  creating  an  obstacle  with  a  given 
object,  and  then  avoiding  the  attainment  of  that 
object.  It  would  have  been  better  at  once  to  seek 
what  was  needed  in  the  other  imjiost  without  tax- 
ing French  salt.  Such  are  the  circumstances  under 
which  I  would  allow  u]ion  any  foreign  article  a 
duty,  not  i^rotecting,  but  fiscal. 

But  the  supposition  that  a  nation,  because  it  is 
subjected  to  heavier  imposts  than  those  of  another 
neighboring  nation,  should  protect  itself  by  tarifïs 
against  the  competition  of  its  rival,  is  a  Sophism, 
which  it  is  now  my  purpose  to  attack. 

I  have  said  more  than  once,  that  I  am  opposing 
only  the  theory  of  the  protectionists,  with  the  liope 
of  discovering  the  source  of  their  errors.  Were  I 
disposed  to  enter  into  controversy  with  them,  1 
would  say  :  Why  direct  your  tarifi"s  principally 
îigainst  England  and  Belgium,  both  countries  more 


60  SOPHISMS    OK    PKOTKCTIOX. 

overloaded  witli  taxes  than  any  in  tlic  world  ? 
Have  I  not  a  rii^ht  to  look  upon  your  argument  as 
a  mere  pretext  ?  But  I  am  not  of  the  nnmber  of 
those  who  believe  that  prohibitionists  are  guided  by 
interest,  and  not  by  conviction.  The  doctrine  of 
Protection  is  too  popular  not  to  be  sincere.  If  the 
majority  could  believe  in  freedom,  we  would  be 
free.  Without  doubt  it  is  individual  interest  which 
weighs  us  down  with  tariffs  ;  but  it  acts  upon  con- 
viction. 

The  State  may  make  either  a  good  or  a  bad  nse  of 
taxes  ;  it  makes  a  good  use  of  them  when  it  ren- 
ders to  the  public  services  equivalent  to  the  value 
received  from  them  ;  it  makes  a  l)ad  use  of  them 
when  it  expends  this  value,  giving  nothing  in 
return. 

To  say  in  the  first  case  that  they  place  the  coun- 
try which  pays  them  in  more  disadvantageous  con- 
ditions for  production,  than  the  country  which  is 
free  from  them,  is  a  Sophism.  We  pay,  it  is  true, 
iwenty  millions  for  the  administration  of  justice, 
and  the  maintenance  of  the  police,  but  we  have 
justice  and  the  police  ;  we  have  the  security  which 
they  give,  the  time  wliich  they  save  for  us  ;  and  it 
is  most  probable  that  production  is  neither  more 
easy  nor  more  active  among  nations,  where  (if  there 
be  such)  eacli  individual  takes  the  administration 
of  justice  into  his  own  hands.  We  pay,  I  grant, 
many  hundred   millions   for   roads,  bridges,   ports. 


I 

à 


PRODUCTIONS    OVERLOADED    WITII*  TAXES.  Gi 

railways  ;  but  we  have  these  railways,  these  ports, 
bridges  and  roads,  and  nnless  we  maintain  that  it 
is  a  losing  business  to  establisli  them,  we  cannot 
say  that  they  place  ns  in  a  position  inferior  to  that 
of  nations  who  have,  it  is  true,  no  taxes  for  public 
works,  but  who  likewise  have  no  pubHc  works. 
And  here  we  see  why  (even  while  we  accuse  inter- 
nal taxes  of  being  a  cause  of  industrial  inferiority) 
we  direct  our  tariffs  precisely  against  those  nations 
which  are  the  most  taxed.  It  is  because  these  taxes, 
well  used,  far  from  injuring,  have  ameliorated  the 
co7iditions  of  production  to  these  nations.  Thus  we 
again  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  protectionist 
Sophisms  not  only  wander  from,  but  are  the  con- 
trary— the  very  antithesis  of  truth. 

As  to  unpioductive  imposts,  suppress  them  if  you 
can  ;  but  surely  it  is  a  most  singular  idea  to  sup- 
pose that  their  evil  effect  is  to  be  neutralized  by 
the  addition  of  individual  taxes  to  public  taxes. 
Many  thanks  for  the  compensation  !  The  State, 
you  say,  has  taxed  us  too  mucli  ;  surely  this  is  no 
reason  why  we  should  tax  each  other  ! 

A  protective  duty  is  a  tax  directed  against  for- 
eign produce,  but  which  returns,  let  us  keep  in 
mind,  upon  the  national  consumer.  Is  it  not  tlien 
a  singular  argument  to  say  to  him,  "  Because  the 
taxes  are  heavy,  we  will  raise  prices  higher  for  you  ; 
and  because  the  State  takes  a  jxirt  of  your  revenue, 
we  will  give  another  portion  of  it  to  benefit  a  mo- 
nopoly" ? 


62  'sophisms  of  pkotection. 

But  let  us  examine  more  closely  this  Sophism  so 
accredited  ainonm'  our  le<i'islator8  ;  although,  strange 
to  say,  it  is  precisely  those  who  keep  up  the  unpro- 
ductive imposts  (according  to  our  present  hypoth- 
esis) who  attribute  to  them  afterward  our  sup- 
posed inferiority,  and  seek  to  re-establish  the  equi- 
librium by  further  imposts  and  new  clogs. 

It  appears  to  me  to  be  evident  that  protection, 
without  any  change  in  its  nature  and  effects,  might 
have  taken  the  form  of  a  direct  tax,  raised  by  the 
State,  and  distributed  as  a  premium  to  privileged 
industi-y. 

Let  us  admit  that  foreign  iron  could  be  sold  in  our 
market  at  eight  francs,  but  not  lower  ;  and  French 
iron  at  not  lower  than  twelve  francs. 

In  this  hypothesis  tliere  are  two  ways  in  which 
the  State  can  secure  the  national  market  to  the 
liome  producer. 

Tlie  first,  IS  to  put  upon  foreign  iron  a  dut}^  of 
five  francs.  Tins,  it  is  evident,  would  exclude  it, 
because  it  could  no  longer  be  sold  at  less  than  thir- 
teen francs  :  eight  francs  for  the  cost  price,  five  for 
the  tax  ;  and  at  this  price  it  must  be  driven  from 
the  market  by  French  iron,  which  we  have  sup- 
posed to  cost  twelve  francs.  In  this  case  the  buyer, 
the  consumer,  will  have  paid  all  the  expenses  of  the 
protection  given. 

The  second  means  would  be  to  lay  upon  the 
public  a  tax  of  five  francs,   and  to  give  it  as  a  pre- 


PRODUCTIONS    OVERLOADED    WITH    TAXES.  63 

mium  to  tlic  iron  mannfacturer.  The  effect  would 
in  either  case  be  equally  a  protective  measure. 
Foreign  iron  would,  according  to  both  systems,  be 
alike  excluded  ;  for  our  iron  manufacturer  could 
sell  at  seven  francs,  what,  with  tlie  five  francs  pre- 
mium, would  thus  bring  him  in  twelve.  Wliile 
the  price  of  sale  being  seven  francs,  foreign  iron 
could  not  obtain  a  market  at  eight. 

In  these  two  systems  the  principle  is  the  same  ; 
the  effect  is  the  same.  There  is  but  this  single 
difference  :  in  the  first  case  the  expense  of  protec- 
tion is  paid  by  a  jjart,  in  the  second  by  the  whole 
of  the  community. 

I  frankly  confess  my  preference  for  the  second 
system,  which  I  regard  as  more  just,  more  eco- 
nomical, and  more  legal.  More  just,  because,  if 
society  wishes  to  give  bounties  to  some  of  its  mem- 
bers, the  whole  community  ought  to  contribute  ; 
more  economical,  because  it  would  banish  many 
difficulties,  and  save  the  expenses  of  collection  ; 
more  legal,  lastly,  because  the  public  would  see 
clearly  into  the  operation,  and  know  what  was  re- 
quired of  it. 

But  if  the  protective  system  had  taken  this  form, 
would  it  not  have  been  laughable  enough  to  hear  it 
said,  "  We  pay  heavy  taxes  for  the  army,  the  navy, 
the  judiciary,  the  public  works,  the  schools,  the 
public  debt,  etc.  These  amount  to  more  than  a 
thousand  million.     It  would  therefore  be  desirable 


64  soinrisMS  of  protection. 

that  the  State  should  take  another  thousand  million, 
to  relieve  the  poor  iron  manufactiircrs  ;  or  the  suffer- 
ing stockholders  of  coal  mines  ;  or  those  unfortunate 
lumber  dealers,  or  the  useful  codfishery. " 

This,  it  must  be  j^erceived,  by  an  attentive  inves- 
tigation, is  the  result  of  the  Sophism  in  question. 
In  vain,  gentlemen,  are  all  your  efforts  ;  you  cannot 
give  money  to  one  without  taking  it  from  another. 
If  you  are  absolutely  determined  to  exhaust  the  funds 
of  tlie  taxable  community,  well  ;  but,  at  least,  do 
not  mock  them  ;  do  not  tell  them,  "  We  take  from 
you  again,  in  order 'to  compensate  you  for  what  we 
have  already  taken." 

It  would  be  a  too  tedious  undertaking  to  en- 
deavor to  point  out  all  the  fallacies  of  this  Soph- 
ism. I  will  therefore  limit  myself  to  the  considera- 
tion of  it  in  three  points. 

You  argue  that  France  is  overburdened  with 
taxes,  and  deduce  thence  the  conclusion  that  it  is 
necessary  to  protect  such  and  such  an  article  of  pro- 
duce. But  protection  does  not  relieve  us  from  the 
payment  of  these  taxes.  If,  then,  individuals  de- 
voting themselves  to  any  one  object  of  industry, 
should  advance  this  demand  :  "  We,  from  our  par- 
ticipation in  the  payment  of  taxes,  have  our 
expenses  of  production  increased,  and  therefore  ask 
for  a  protective  duty  which  shall  raise  our  price  of 
sale  ;"  what  is  this  but  a  demand  on  their  part  to 
be  allowed  to  free  themselves  from  the  burden  of 


PRODUCTIONS    OVEKI-OADEI)    WITH    TAXES.  65 

the  tax,  by  laying;  it  on  the  rest  of  the  community  ? 
Their  object  is  to  balance,  by  tlie  increased  price  of 
their  produce,  the  amount  which  theij  pay  in  taxes. 
Now,  as  the  w^hole  amount  of  these  taxes  must 
enter  into  the  treasury,  and  the  increase  of  price, 
must  be  paid  by  society,  it  follows  that  (where  this 
protective  duty  is  imposed)  society  has  to  bear,  not 
only  the  general  tax,  but  also  that  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  article  in  question.  But,  it  is  answered, 
let  everything  be  protected.  Firstly,  this  is  impos- 
sible ;  and,  again,  were  it  possible,  how  could  such 
a  system  give  relief  ?  /  will  pay  for  you,  you  will 
pay  for  me  ;  but  not  the  less,  still  there  remains  the 
tax  to  be  paid. 

Thus  you  are  the  dupes  of  an  illusion.  You  de- 
termine to  raise  taxes  for  the  support  of  an  army, 
a  navy,  the  church,  university,  judges,  roads,  etc. 
Afterward  you  seek  to  disburden  from  its  portion 
of  the  tax,  first  one  article  of  industry,  then  another, 
then  a  third  ;  always  adding  to  the  burden  of  the 
mass  of  society.  You  thus  only  create  intermina- 
ble complications.  If  you  can  prove  that  the 
increase  of  price  resulting  from  protection,  falls 
u])on  the  foreign  producer,  I  grant  something  spe- 
cious in  your  argument.  But  if  it  be  true  that  the 
French  people  paid  the  tax  before  the  passing  of 
the  protective  duty,  and  afterward  that  it  has 
paid  not  only  the  tax,  but  the  protective  duty  also, 
truly  I  do  not  perceive  wherein  it  has  profited. 


(j6  sophisms  ok  protection. 

But  I  iro  tniich  farther,  niul  maintain  that  the 
more  oppressive  our  taxes  are,  tlie  more  anxiously 
oucçht  we  to  open  our  ports  and  frontiers  to  foreign 
nations,  less  burdened  than  ourselves.  And  wliy  ? 
In  order  that  we  may  share  with  them,  as  much  as 
possible,  the  burden  which  we  hear.  Is  it  not  an 
incontestable  maxim  in  political  economy,  that  taxes 
must,  in  the  end,  fall  upon  the  consumer  ?  The 
greater  then  our  commerce,  the  greater  the  portion 
which  will  be  reimbursed  to  us,  of  taxes  incorpo- 
rated in  the  produce,  which  we  will  have  sold  to 
foreign  consumers  ;  while  we,  on  our  part,  will 
have  made  to  them  only  a  lesser  reimbursement, 
because  (according  to  our  li)q')otlicsis)  their  produce 
is  less  taxed  than  ours. 

Again,  finally,  has  it  ever  occurred  to  you  to  ask 
yourself,  whether  these  heavy  taxes  wliich  you 
adduce  as  a  reason  for  keeping  up  the  ])rohibitive 
system,  may  not  be  the  result  of  this  very  system 
itself  ?  To  what  purpose  would  be  our  great  stand- 
ing armies,  and  our  powerful  navies,  if  commerce 
were  free  ? 


BALANCE   OF    TRADE.  67 

VI. 

BALANCE    OF    TKADE. 

Our  adversaries  have  adopted  a  system  of  tactics, 
wliich  embarrasses  lis  not  a  little.  Do  we  prove 
our  doctrine  ?  They  admit  the  truth  of  it  in  the 
most  respectful  manner.  Do  we  attack  their  princi- 
ples ?  They  abandon  them  with  the  best  possible 
grace.  They  only  ask  that  our  doctrine,  wliich 
they  acknowledge  to  be  true,  shopld  be  confined  to 
books  ;  and  that  their  principles,  which  they  allow 
to  be  false,  should  be  established  in  practice.  If 
we  will  give  up  to  them  the  regulation  of  our 
tariffs,  they  will  leave  us  triumphant  in  the  domain 
of  theory. 

"  Assuredly,"  said  Mr.  Gauthier  de  Roumilly, 
lately,  "  assuredly  no  one  wishes  to  call  up  from 
their  graves  the  defunct  theories  of  the  balance  of 
trade."  And  yet  Mr.  Gauthier,  after  giving  this 
passing  blow  to  error,  goes  on  immediately  after- 
ward, and  for  two  hours  consecutively,  to  reason  as 
though  this  error  were  a  truth. 

Give  me  Mr.  Lestiboudois.  Here  we  have  a  con- 
sistent reasoner  !  a  logical  arguer  !  There  is  noth- 
ing in  his  conclusions  which  cannot  be  found  in  his 
premises.  He  asks  nothing  in  ])ractice  which  he 
does  not  justify  in  theory.     Ilis  principles  may  per- 


68  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

chance  he  false,  and  tliis  is  the  point  in  question. 
P)Ut  he  lias  a  principle.  lie  believes,  ho  ]>i-o('Jainis 
aloud,  that  if  L^rance  gives  ten  to  receive  lifteen, 
she  loses  five  ;  and  surely,  with  such  a  belief,  noth- 
ing is  more  natural  than  that  he  sh(juld  make  laws 
consistent  with  it. 

lie  says  :  "  What  it  is  important  to  remark  is, 
that  constantly  the  amount  of  importation  is  aug- 
menting, and  surpassing  that  of  exportation.  Every 
year  France  buys  more  foreign  produce,  and  sells 
less  of  its  own  produce.  This  can  be  proved  by 
figures.  In  1842.  we  see  the  importation  exceed 
the  exportation  by  two  Jiundred  millions.  Tiiis 
appears  to  me  to  prove,  in  the  clearest  manner,  that 
national  labor  is  not  sufficientlij protected,  that  we  are 
provided  by  foreign  labor,  and  that  the  competi- 
tion of  our  rivals  oppresses  our  industry.  The  law 
in  question  appears  to  me  to  be  a  consecration  of  the 
fact,  that  our  political  economists  hav^e  assumed  a 
false  position  in  declaring,  that  in  proportion  to  prod- 
uce bought,  there  is  always  a  corresponding  quan- 
tity sold.  It  is  evident  that  purchases  may  be  made, 
not  with  the  habitual  productions  of  a  country,  not 
with  its  revenue,  not  with  the  results  of  actual 
labor,  but  witli  its  capital,  with  the  accumulated 
savings  which  should  serve  for  reyjroduction.  A 
country  may  spend,  dissipate  its  profits  and  savings, 
may  impoverish  itself,  and  by  the  consumption  of 
its  national  capital,  progress  gradually  to  its  ruin- 


BALANCE    OF    TRADE,  69 

Tlcis  is  precisely  what  we  are  doing.  We  give,  every 
year,  two  hundred  inillions  to  foreign  nations.  '  ' 

Well  !  here,  at  least,  is  a  man  whom  we  can  nnder- 
stand.  Tliere  is  no  hypocrisy  in  this  langnage.  Tlie 
batance  of  trade  is  here  clearly  maintained  and 
decended.  France  imports  two  hundred  millions 
more  than  she  exports.  Then  France  loses  two 
hundred  millions  yearly.  And  the  remedy  ?  It  is 
to  check  importation.  The  conclusion  is  perfectly 
consistent. 

It  is,  then,  with  Mr.  Lestiljoudois  that  we  will 
ar^ue,  for  how  is  it  possible  to  do  so  with  Mr. 
Gauthier  ?  If  you  say  to  the  latter,  the  balance  of 
trade  is  a  mistake,  he  will  answer.  So  I  have  de- 
clared it  in  my  exordium.  If  you  exclaim,  But  it 
is  a  truth,  he  will  say,  Thus  I  have  classed  it  in  my 
conclusions. 

Political  economists  may  blame  me  for  arguing 
with  Mr.  Lestiboadois.  To  combat  the  balance  of 
trade,  is,  tliey  say,  neither  more  nor  less  than  to 
fight  against  a  windmilL 

But  let  us  be  on  our  guard.  The  balance  of 
trade  is  neither  so  old,  nor  so  sick,  nor  so  dead,  as 
Mr.  Gauthier  is  pleased  to  imagine  ;  for  all  the  legis- 
lature, Mr.  Gauthier  himself  included,  are  associated 
by  their  votes  witii  the  theory  of  Mr.  Lestiboudois. 

However,  not  to  fatigue  the  reader,  I  will  not 
seek  to  investigate  too  closely  this  theory,  but  will 
content  myself  with  subjecting  it  to  tlie  experience 
of  facts. 


To  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTKCTION. 

It  is  constantly  alleged  in  opposition  to  our  prin- 
ciples, that  they  are  good  only  in  theory.  But,  gen- 
tlemen, do  you  believe  that  merchants'  books  are 
good  in  practice  ?  It  does  appear  to  me  that  if 
there  is  anything  which  can  have  a  practical  author- 
ity, when  the  object  is  to  prove  profit  and  loss,  that 
this  must  be  commercial  accounts.  We  cannot 
suppose  that  all  the  merchants  of  the  world,  for 
centuries  back,  should  have  so  little  understood 
their  own  affairs,  as  to  have  kept  their  books  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  represent  gains  as  losses,  and 
losses  as  gains.  Truly  it  would  be  easier  to  believe 
that  Mr.  Lestiboudois  is  a  bad  political  economist. 

A  merchant,  one  of  my  friends,  having  had  two 
business  transactions,  with  very  different  results, 
I  have  been  curious  to  compare  on  this  subject 
the  accounts  of  the  counter  with  those  of  the  cus- 
tom-house, interpreted  by  Mr.  Lestiboudois  with 
the  sanction  of  our  six  hundred  legislators. 

Mr.  T.  .  .  despatched  from  Havre  a  vessel, 
freighted,  for  the  United  States,  with  French  mer- 
chandise, principally  Parisian  articles,  valued  at 
200,000  francs.  Such  was  the  amount  entered  at 
the  custom-house.  The  cargo,  on  its  arrival  at  New 
Orleans,  had  paid  ten  per  cent  expenses,  and  was 
liable  to  thirty  per  cent  duties  ;  wJiich  raised  its 
value  to  280,0(10  francs.  It  was  sold  at  twenty  per 
cent  profit  on  its  original  value,  which  being  40,000 
francs,  the  price  of  sale  was  320,000  francs,  which 


BALANCE    OF    TRADE.  Tl 

tlie  assii^nv-e  converted  into  cotton.  Tliis  cotton, 
again,  had  to  pay  for  expenses  of  transportation, 
msnrancc,  oonnnissions,  etc.,  ten  per  cent  :  so  that 
wlien  the  return  carii^o  arrived  at  Havre,  its  vahie 
had  risen  to  352,000  francs,  and  it  was  thus  en- 
tered at  the  custom-liouse.  Finally,  Mr.  T.  .  . 
realized  a^ain  on  this  return  cargo  twenty  per  cent 
profits,  amounting  to  70,400  francs.  The  cotton 
thus  sold  for  the  sum  of  422,400  francs. 

If  Mr.  Lestiboudois  requires  it,  I  will  send  him 
an  extract  from  the  books  of  Mr.  T.  .  .  lie  will 
there  see,  credited  to  the  account  of  frojit  and  loss, 
that  is  to  say,  set  down  as  gained,  two  sums  :  the 
one  of  40,000,  the  other  of  70,000  francs,  and  Mr. 
T.  .  .  feels  perfectly  certain  that  as  regards  these, 
there  is  no  mistake  in  his  accounts. 

IS'ow  what  conclusion  does  Mr.  Lestiboudois  draw 
from  the  sums  entered  into  the  custom-house,  in 
this  operation  ?  He  thence  learns  that  France  has 
exported  2i)0,0()0  francs,  and  imported  352,000  ; 
from  whence  the  honorable  deputy  concludes  "  that 
she  has  spcîit,  dissijjated  the  j^rofits  of  her  previous 
savings  /  that  she  ts  impoverish/hig  herself  andjiro- 
gresstng  to  her  ruin  ;  and  that  she  has  squandered 
on  a  foreign  nation  la'-2^()i)()  fraiics  of  her  capital.''^ 

Some  time  after  this  transaction,  Mr.  T.  .  .  des- 
patched another  vessel,  again  freighted  with  domes- 
tic produce,  to  tlie  amount  of  200,000  francs.  But 
the  vessel  foundered  after  leaving  the  port,  and  Mr. 


72  SOIMIISMS    OF    PKOTEC'ilON. 

T.  .  .  liad  only  further  to  inscribe  on  his  books  two 
little  items,  thus  worded  : 

''''  Simch'ies  due  to  X^  200,000  francs,  for  pur- 
chase of  divers  articles  despatched  by  vessel  N. 

"  Profit  and  loss  due  to  sundries,  200,000 
francs,  for  final  and  total  loss  of  cargo.'' ^ 

In  the  mean  time  the  custom-house  inscribed 
200,000  francs  upon  its  list  of  exportations,  and  as 
there  can  of  course  be  nothing  to  balance  this  entry 
on  the  list  of  importations,  it  hence  follows  that  Mr. 
Lestibondois  and  the  Chamber  must  see  in  this 
wreck  a  clear  profit  to  France  of  200,000  francs. 

We  may  draw  hence  yet  anotlier  conclusion,  viz., 
that  according  to  the  Balance  of  Trade  theory, 
France  has  an  exceedingly  simple  manner  of  con- 
stantly doubling  her  capital.  It  is  only  necessary,  to 
accomplish  this,  that  she  should,  after  entering  into 
the  custom-house  her  articles  for  exportation,  cause 
them  to  be  thrown  into  the  sea.  ^y  this  course, 
her  exportations  can  speedily  be  made  to  equal  her 
capital  ;  importations  will  be  nothing,  and  our  gain 
will  be,  all  which  the  ocean  will  have  swallowed  up. 

You  are  joking,  the  protectionists  will  reply. 
You  know  that  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  utter 
such  absurdities.  Nevertheless,  I  answer,  you  do 
utter  them,  and  what  is  more,  you  give  them  life  ; 
you  exercise  them  practically  upon  your  fellow- 
citizens,  as  much,  at  least,  as  is  in  your  power  to  do. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  theory  of  the  Balance  of 


PETITION.  73 

Trade  should  be  precisely  reversed.  The  profits 
accruino;  to  the  nation  from  any  foreign  commerce 
should  he  calculated  by  the  overplus  of  the  impor- 
tation above  the  exportation.  This  ov^erphis,  after 
the  deduction  of  expenses,  is  the  real  gain.  Here 
we  have  the  true  theory,  and  it  is  one  which  leads 
directly  to  freedom  in  trade.  I  now,  gentlemen, 
abandon  you  this  theory,  as  1  have  done  all  those 
of  the  preceding  chapters.  Do  with  it  as  you  please, 
exaggerate  it  as  you  will  ;  it  has  nothing  to  fear. 
Push  it  to  the  farthest  extreme  ;  imagine,  if  it  so 
please  you,  that  foreign  nations  should  inundate  us 
with  useful  produce  of  every  description,  and  ask 
nothing  in  return  ;  that  our  importations  should  be 
infinite.,  and  our  exportations  nothing.  Imagine  all 
this,  and  still  1  defy  you  to  prove  that  we  will  be 
the  poorer  in  consequence. 


VII. 

PETITION  FROM  THE  MANUFACTURERS  OF  CANDLES, 
WAX-LIGHTS,  LAMPS,  CHANDELIERS,  REFLECTORS, 
SNUFFERS,  EXTINGUISHERS  ;  AND  FROM  THE  PRO- 
DUCERS OF  TALLOW,  OIL,  RESIN,  ALCOHOL,  AND 
GENERALLY    OF    EVERYTHING    USED    FOR    LIGHTS. 

"  To  the  Honorable  the  Meinbern  of  the  Chamber  of  Deptdicts. 

"  Gentlemen  :   You  are  in   the   right  way  :  you 
reject  abstract  theories  ;  abundance,  cheapness,  con- 


74  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

cerns  yon  little.  You  are  entirely  occupied  with 
the  interest  of  the  producer,  whom  yon  are  anxious 
to  free  from  foreign  competition.  In  a  word,  you 
wish  to  secure  the  national  market  to  national 
labor. 

"  We  come  now  to  offer  you  an  admirable  oppor- 
tunity for  the  application  of  your — what  shall  we 
say  ?  your  theory  ?  no,  nothing  is  more  deceiving 
than  theory  ; — your  doctrine  ?  your  system  ?  your 
principle  ?  But  you  do  not  like  doctrines  ;  you 
hold  systems  in  horror  ;  and,  as  for  principles,  you 
declare  that  tliere  are  no  such  things  in  political 
economy.  We  will  say  then,  your  practice  ;  your 
practice  without  theory,  and  without  principle. 

"  We  are  subjected  to  the  intolerable  competition 
of  a  foreign  rival,  who  enjoys,  it  wouhl  seem,  such 
superior  facilities  for  the  production  of  light,  that 
lie  is  enabled  to  inundate  our  national  markct  at  so 
exceedingly  reduced  a  price,  that,  the  moment  lie 
makes  his  appearance,  he  draws  off  all  custom  from 
us  ;  and  thus  an  important  branch  of  French  indus- 
try, with  all  its  innumerable  ramifications,  is  sud- 
denly reduced  to  a  state  of  complete  stagnation. 
This  rival,  who  is  no  other  than  the  sun,  carries  on 
so  bitter  a  war  against  us,  that  we  have  every  reason 
to  believe  that  he  has  been  excited  to  this  course  by 
our  perfidious  neighbor  England.  (Good  diplomacy 
this,  for  the  present  time  !)  In  this  belief  we  are 
confirmed    by  the  fact  that  in  all  liis  transactions 


PETITION.  75 

with  tliis  proud  island,  lie  is  luiicli  more  moderate 
and  careful  than  with  us. 

"  Our  petition  is,  that  it  would  please  yonr  hon- 
orable body  to  pass  a  law  whereby  shall  be  directed 
the  shutting  up  of  all  windows,  dormers,  skyli<^hts, 
shutters,  curtains,  vasistas,  œil-de-bœufs,  in  a  word, 
all  openings,  holes,  chinks,  and  fissures  through 
which  the  light  of  the  sun  is  used  to  penetrate  into 
our  dwellings,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  profitable 
manufacturers  which  we  flatter  ourselves  we  have 
been  enabled  to  bestow  upon  the  country  ;  which 
country  cannot,  therefore,  without  ingratitude,  leave 
us  now  to  struggle  unprotected  through  so  unequal 
a  contest. 

"  We  pray  your  honorable  body  not  to  mistake 
our  petition  for  a  satire,  nor  to  repulse  us  without 
at  least  hearing  the  reasons  which  we  have  to  ad- 
vance in  its  favor. 

"  And  first,  if,  by  shutting  out  as  much  as  possii)le 
all  access  to  natural  liglit,  you  thus  create  the  neces- 
sity for  artificial  light,  is  there  in  France  an  industrial 
pursuit  which  will  not,  through  some  connection 
with  this  important  ol)ject,  be  benefited  by  it  ? 

"If  more  tallow  be  consumed,  there  will  arise  a 
necessity  for  an  increase  of  cattle  and  sheep.  Thus 
artificial  meadows  must  be  m  greater  demand  ;  and 
meat,  wool,  leatlier,  and  above  all,  manure,  this  basis 
of  agricultural  riches,  must  become  more  abuiulant. 

'*  It  more  oil  be  consumed,  it  will  cause  an  increase 


76  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

in  the  cultivation  of  the  olive  tree.  This  plant, 
luxuriant  and  exhausting  to  tiie  soil,  will  come  in 
good  time  to  profit  by  the  increased  fertility  which 
the  raising  of  cattle  will  have  communicated  to  our 
fields. 

"  Our  heaths  will  become  covered  witli  resinous 
trees.  Numerous  swarms  of  bees  will  gather  upon 
our  mountains  the  perfumed  treasures,  which  are 
now  cast  upon  the  winds,  useless  as  the  blossoms 
from  which  they  emanate.  There  is,  in  sjiort,  no 
branch  of  agriculture  which  would  not  be  greatly 
developed  by  the  granting  of  our  petition. 

"Navigation  would  equally  profit.  Thousands 
of  vessels  would  so(m  be  employed  in  the  whale 
fisheries,  and  thence  would  arise  a  navy  capable  of 
sustaining  the  honor  of  France,  and  of  responding 
to  the  patriotic  sentiments  of  the  undersigned  peti- 
tioners, candle  merchants,  etc. 

"  But  what  words  can  express  the  magnificence 
whieli  Payais  will  then  exhibit  !  Cast  an  eye  upon 
the  future  and  behold  the  gildings,  the  bronzes,  the 
magnificent  crystal  chandeliers,  lamps,  reflectors, 
an(]  candelabras,  which  will  glitter  in  the  spacious 
stores,  compared  with  which  the  splendor  of  the 
present  day  will  appear  trifling  and  insignificant. 

"  There  is  none,  not  even  the  poor  manufacturer 
of  resin  in  the  midst  of  liis  pine  forests,  nor  the 
miserable  miner  m  his  dark  dwelling,  but  wlio 
would  enjoy  an  increase  ot  salary  and  of  comforts. 


PETITION. 


77 


"  Gentlemen,  if  you  will  he  pleased  to  reflect, 
yon  cannot  fail  to  be  convinced  that  there  is  per- 
liaps  not  one  Frenchman,  from  the  opnlent  stock- 
liolder  of  Anzin  down  to  the  poorest  vender  of 
matches,  who  is  not  interested  in  the  success  of  our 
petition. 

"  We  foresee  your  objections,  geîitlemen  ;  but 
there  is  not  one  that  you  can  oppose  to  us  which 
you  will  not  be  obliged  to  gather  from  the  works 
of  the  partisans  of  free  trade.  We  dare  challenge 
you  to  pronounce  one  word  against  our  petition, 
which  is  not  equally  opposed  to  your  own  practice 
and  the  principle  M'hich  guides  your  policy. 

"  Do  you  tell  us,  that  if  we  gain  by  this  protec- 
tion, France  will  not  gain,  because  the  consumer 
must  pay  the  ])rice  of  it  ? 

"  We  answer  you  : 

"  You  have  no  longer  any  right  to  cite  the  inter- 
est of  tlie  consumer.  For  whenever  this  has  been 
found  to  compete  with  that  of  the  producer,  you 
have  invariably  sacriticcd  the  first.  You  have  done 
this  to  encourage  lahoi\  to  increase  the  demand  for 
labor.  The  same  reason  should  now  induce  you  to 
act  in  the  same  manner. 

"  You  liave  yourselves  already  answered  the 
objection.  "When  you  were  told  :  The  consumer  is 
interested  in  the  free  introduction  of  iron,  coal,  corn, 
wheat,  cloths,  etc.,  your  answer  was  :  Yes,  but  the 
producer  is  interested  in  their    exclusion.     Thus, 


<0  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

also,  if  tlic  consumer  is  interested  in  the  admission 
of  li^'lit,  we,  tlio  producers,  pray  for  its  interdiction. 

"  You  have  also  said,  the  producer  and  the  con- 
sumer are  one.  If  the  manufacturer  gains  by  pro- 
tection, lie  will  cause  the  agriculturist  to  gain  also  ; 
if  agriculture  prospers,  it  opens  a  market  for  manu- 
factured goods.  Thus  we,  if  you  confer  upon  us 
the  monopoly  of  furnishing  light  during  the  day, 
will  as  a  first  consequence  buy  large  quantities  of 
tallow,  coals,  oil,  resin,  wax,  alcohol,  silver,  iron, 
bronze,  crystal,  for  the  supply  of  our  business  ;  and 
then  we  and  our  numerous  contractors,  having 
become  rich,  our  consumption  will  be  great,  and 
will  become  a  means  of  contributing  to  the  com- 
fort and  competency  of  the  workers  in  every 
branch  of  national  labor. 

"  Will  you  say  that  the  light  of  the  sun  is  a 
gratuitous  gift,  and  that  to  repulse  gratuitous  gifts 
is  to  repulse  riches  under  pretence  of  encouraging 
the  means  of  obtaining  them  ? 

'' Take  care, — you  carry  the  death-blow  to  your 
own  policy.  Remember  that  hitherto  you  have 
always  repulsed  foreign  produce,  because  it  was  an 
approach  to  a  gratuitous  gift,  and  the  more  in  pro- 
portion as  this  approach  was  more  close.  You  have, 
in  obeying  the  wishes  of  other  monopolists,  acted 
only  from  a  half-motive  ;  to  grant  our  petition 
there  is  a  mneh  fuller  inducement.  To  repulse  us, 
precisely  for  the  reason  that  our  case  is  a  more  com- 


PETITION.  79 

plete  OTie  than  any  wliicîi  liave  preceded  it,  would  be 
to  lay  down  the  followino;  equation  :  -|-  X  +  =  —  ; 
in  other  words,  it  would  be  to  accumulate  absurdity 
upon  absurdity. 

"  Labor  and  Nature  concur  in  different  propor- 
tions, according  to  country  and  climate,  in  every 
article  of  production.  The  portion  of  Nature  is 
always  gratuitous  ;  that  of  labor  alone  regulates  the 
price. 

"  If  a  Lisbon  orange  can  be  sold  at  half  the  price 
of  a  Parisian  one,  it  is  because  a  natural  and  gra- 
tuitous heat  does  for  the  one,  what  the  other  only 
obtains  from  an  artificial  and  consequently  expen- 
sive one. 

"  When,  therefore,  we  purchase  a  Portuguese 
orange,  we  may  say  that  we  obtain  it  half  gratui- 
tously and  half  by  the  right  of  labor  ,  in  other  words, 
at  half  iwice  compared  to  those  of  Paris. 

"  Now  it  is  precisely  on  account  of  this  devii- 
gratuity  (excuse  the  word)  that  you  argue  in  favor 
of  exchision.  IIow,  you  say,  could  national  labor 
sustain  the  competition  of  foreign  labor,  wlien  the 
first  has  everything  to  do,  and  the  last  is  rid  of 
half  the  trouble,  the  sun  taking  the  rest  of  the 
business  upon  himself  ?  If  then  the  demi-gratuity 
can  determine  you  to  check  competition,  on  what 
principle  can  the  entire  gratuity  be  alleged  as  a  rea- 
son for  admitting  it  ?  You  arc  no  logicians  if, 
refusing   the    demi-gratuity    as    hurtful  to    human 


80'  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

labor,  you  do  not  à  fortiori^  and  witli  donblc  zeal , 
reject  the  full  gratuity. 

"  Again,  when  any  article,  as  coal,  iron,  cheese, 
or  cloth,  comes  to  us  from  foreign  countries  with 
less  labor  than  if  we  produce  it  ourselves,  the  dif- 
ference in  price  is  a  gratuitous  gift  conferred  upon 
us  ;  and  the  gift  is  more  or  less  considerable,  accord- 
ing as  the  différence  is  greater  or  less.  It  is  the 
quarter,  the  half,  or  the  three  quarters  of  the  value 
of  the  produce,  in  proportion  as  the  foreign  mer- 
chant requires  the  three  quarters,  the  half,  or  the 
quarter  of  the  price.  It  is  as  complete  as  possible 
when  the  producer  offers,  as  the  sun  does  with  light, 
the  whole  in  free  gift.  The  question  is,  and  we 
put  it  formally,  whether  you  wish  for  France  the 
bjBuelit  of  gratuitous  consumption,  or  the  supposed 
advantages  of  laborious  production.  Choose,  but 
be  consistent.  And  does  it  not  argue  the  greatest 
inconsistency  to  check  as  you  do  the  importation 
of  coal,  iron,  cheese,  and  goods  of  foreign  manu- 
facture, merely  because  and  even  in  proportion  as 
their  price  approaches  zero^  while  at  the  same  time 
you  freely  admit,  and  without  limitation,  the  light 
of  the  sun,  whose  price  is  during  the  whole  day  at 
zero  .^'" 


DISCRIMINATING    DUTIES.  81 


VIII. 

DISCRIMINATING    DUTIES. 

A  POOR  laborer  of  Gironde  liad  raised,  witli  the 
greatest  possible  care  and  attention,  a  nursery  of 
vines,  from  which,  after  much  labor,  he  at  last  suc- 
ceeded in  producing  a  pipe  of  wine,  and  forgot,  in 
the  joy  of  his  success,  that  eacli  drop  of  this  pre- 
cious nectar  had  cost  a  drop  of  sweat  to  his  brow. 
I  will  sell  it,  said  lie  to  his  wife,  and  with  the  pro- 
ceeds I  will  buy  bread,  which  will  serve  you  to  make 
a  trousseau  for  our  daughter.  The  honest  country- 
man, arriving  in  the  city,  there  met  an  Englishman 
and  a  Belgian.  The  Belgian  said  to  him,  Give  me 
your  wine,  and  I  in  exchange  will  give  you  fifteen 
bundles  of  thread.  The  Englishman  said,  Give  it 
to  me,  and  I  will  give  you  twenty  bundles,  for  we 
English  can  spin  cheaper  than  the  Belgians.  But 
a  custom-house  officer  standing  b}-,  said  to  the 
laborer.  My  good  fellow,  make  your  exchange,  if 
you  choose,  with  the  Belgian,  but  it  is  my  duty  to 
prevent  your  doing  so  with  the  Englishman. 
What  !  exclaimed  the  countryman,  you  wish  me 
to  take  fifteen  bundles  of  Brussels  thread,  when  1 
can  have  twenty  from  Manchester  ?  Certainly  ;  do 
you  not  see  that  France  would  be  a  loser,  if  you 
were  to  receive  twenty  bundles  instead  of  fifteen  ? 


82  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

I  can  scarcely  understand  this,  said  tlie  laborer. 
Nor  can  I  explain  it,  said  the  cnstoni-house  officer, 
Imt  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  fact  ;  for  deputies, 
ministers,  and  editors,  all  agree  that  a  people  is 
impoverished  in  proportion  as  it  receives  a  large 
compensation  for  any  given  (piantity  of  its  produce. 
The  countryman  Avas  obliged  to  conclude  his  bar- 
gain with  the  Belgian.  His  dangliter  received  but 
three  fourths  of  lier  trousseau  •  and  these  good  folks 
are  still  pnzzling  themselves  to  discover  how  it  can 
happen  that  people  are  ruined  by  receiving  four 
instead*  of  three  ;  and  why  they  are  richer  with 
three  dozen  towels  instead  of  four. 


IX. 


WONDERFUL    DISCOVERY 


At  this  moment,  when  all  minds  are  occupied  in 
endeavoring  to  discover  the  most  economical  means 
of  transportation  ;  when,  to  put  these  means  into 
practice,  we  are  levelling  roads,  improving  rivers, 
perfecting  steamboats,  establishing  railroads,  and 
attempting  various  systems  of  traction,  atmos- 
pheric, hydraulic,  pneumatic,  electric,  etc., — at  this 
momont  when,  I  believe,  every  one  is  seeking  in 
sincerity  and  with  ardor  the  solution  of  this  proo- 
lem — 


WONDERFUL     DISCÔVEKV.  83 

"  To  hring  the  ijric.e  of  things  in  their  place  of 
consuviptiooi,  as  'near  as  2)ossihle  to  their  price  in 
that  of  prodiiction'''' — 

I  would  believe  myself  acting  a  culpable  part  tow- 
ard my  country,  toward  the  age  in  which  I  live, 
and  toward  myself,  if  I  were  longer  to  keep  secret 
the  wonderful  discovery  which  1  have  just  made. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  self -illusion  of  invent- 
ors have  become  proverbial,  but  I  have,  neverthe- 
less, the  most  complete  certainty  of  having  discov- 
ered an  infallible  means  of  bringing  the  produce  of 
the  entire  world  into  France,  and  reciprocally  to 
transport  onrs,  with  a  very  important  reduction  of 
price. 

Infallible  .  and  yet  this  is  but  a  single  one  of  the 
advantages  of  my  astonishing  invention,  which 
requires  neither  plans  nor  devices,  neither  prepara- 
tory studies,  nor  engineers,  nor  machinists,  nor 
capital,  nor  stockholders,  nor  governmental  assist- 
ance !  ïliere  is  no  danger  of  shipwrecks,  of  explo- 
sions, of  shocks,  of  fire,  nor  of  displacement  of 
rails  !  It  can  be  put  into  practice  without  prepara- 
tion from  one  day  to  another  ! 

Finally,  and  this  will,  no  doubt,  recommend  it 
to  the  public,  it  will  not  increase  taxes  one  cent  ; 
but  the  contrary.  It  will  not  augment  the  number 
of  government  functionaries,  nor  the  exigencies  of 
government  officers  ;  but  the  contrary.  It  will  put 
in  hazard  the  liberty  of  no  one  ;  but  the  contrary. 


84:  SOl'HISMS    OF    PROTECTION". 

I  liavG  been  led  to  this  discovorj  not  from  acci- 
dent, but  observation,  and  I  will  tell  you  how. 

I  had  this  question  to  determine  : 

"  Wliy  does  any  article  made,  for  instance,  at 
Brussels,  bear  an  increased  price  on  its  arrival  at 
Paris?" 

It  was  immediately  evident  to  me  that  this  was 
the  result  of  obstacles  of  various  kinds  existing 
between  Brussels  and  Paris.  First,  there  is  distance^ 
which  cannot  be  overcome  without  trouble  and  loss 
of  time  ;  and  either  we  must  submit  to  these  in  our 
own  person,  or  pay  another  for  bearing  them  for  us. 
Tlien  come  rivers,  swamps,  accidents,  heavy  and 
muddy  roads  ;  these  are  so  many  difficulties  to  be 
overcome  ;  in  order  to  do  Avhich,  causeways  are  con- 
structed, bridges  built,  roads  cut  and  paved,  railroads 
established,  etc.  But  all  this  is  costly,  and  the 
article  transported  must  bear  its  portion  of  the 
expense.  There  are  robbers,  too,  on  the  roads,  and 
this  necessitates  guards,  a  police,  etc. 

Now,  among  these  obstacles,  there  is  one  wliich  we 
ourselves  have  placed,  and  that  at  no  little  expense, 
between  Brussels  and  Paris.  This  consists  of  men 
planted  along  the  frontier,  armed  to  the  teeth,  whose 
business  it  is  to  place  dijficidties  in  the  way  of  the 
transportation  of  goods  from  one  country  to  another. 
These  men  are  called  custom-house  officers,  and  their 
effect  is  precisely  similar  to  that  of  steep  and  boggy 
roads.     They  retard  and  put  obstacles  in  the  way 


WONDERFUL     DISCOVERY.  85 

of  transportation,  tlius  contributiiii^  to  the  diiïereiice 
wliicli  we  have  remarked  between  the  price  of  pro- 
duction and  that  of  consumption  ;  to  diminish  wliich 
difference  as  mucli  as  possible,  is  tlie  problem  which 
we  are  seeking  to  resolve. 

Here,  then,  we  have  found  its  solution.  Let  our 
tariff  he  diminished.  We  will  thus  have  constructed 
a  Xorthern  Railroad  which  will  cost  us  nothing:. 
Nay,  more,  we  will  be  saved  great  expenses,  and 
will  begin  from  the  first  day  to  save  capital. 

Really,  I  cannot  but  ask  myself,  in  surprise,  how 
our  brains  could  have  admitted  so  whimsical  a  piece 
of  folly,  as  to  induce  us  to  pay  many  millions  to 
destroy  the  natural  ohstacles  interposed  between 
France  and  other  nations,  only  at  the  same  time  to 
pay  so  many  millions  jnore  in  order  to  replace  them 
by  artificial  ohstacles,  which  have  exactly  the  same 
effect  ;  so  that  the  obstacle  removed,  and  the  obstacle 
created,  neutralize  each  other  ;  things  go  on  as 
before,  and  the  only  result  of  our  trouble,  is,  a 
double  expense. 

An  article  of  Belgian  production  is  worth  at 
Brussels  twenty  francs,  and,  from  the  expenses  of 
transportation,  thirty  francs  at  Paris.  A  similar 
article  of  Parisian  manufacture  costs  forty  francs. 
What  is  our  course  under  these  circumstances  ? 

First,  wo  impose  a  duty  of  at  least  ten  francs  on 
the  Belgian  article,  so  as  to  raise  its  price  to  a  lev'cl 
with  that  of  the  Parisian  ;  the  government  withal, 


86  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

paying  numerous  officials  to  attend  to  the  levying  of 
this  duty.  The  article  thus  pays  ten  francs  for 
transportation,  ten  for  the  tax. 

This  done,  we  say  to  ourselves  :  Transportation 
between  Brussels  and  Paris  is  very  dear  ;  let  us 
spend  two  or  three  millions  in  railways,  and  we  will 
reduce  it  one  half.  Evidently  the  result  of  such  a 
course  will  be  to  get  the  Belgian  article  at  Paris 
for  thirty-five  francs,  viz.  : 

20  francs — price  at  Brussels. 
10     "         duty. 
5     "         transportation  by  railroad. 

35  francs — total,  or  market  price  at  Paris. 

Could  we  not  have  attained  the  same  end  by 
lowering  the  tariff  to  five  francs  ?  We  would  then 
liave — 

20  francs — price  at  Brussels. 

5     '  '  duty. 

10     "         transportation  on  the  common  road. 

35  francs — total,  or  market  price  at  Paris. 

And  this  arrangement  would  have  saved  us  the 
200,000,000  s])ent  upon  the  railroad,  besides  the 
expense  saved  in  custom-house  surveillance,  which 
would  of  course  diminish  in  proportion  as  the 
temptation  to  smuggling  would  become  less. 


WONDERFUL     DISCOVERY.  87 

But  it  is  answered,  the  duty  is  necessary  to  pro- 
tect Parisian  industry.  So  be  it  ;  but  do  not  then 
destroy  the  effect  of  it  by  your  railroad. 

For  if  you  persisst  in  your  determination  to  keep 
the  Belgian  article  on  a  par  with  the  Parisian  at 
forty  francs,  you  must  raise  the  duty  to  fifteen 
francs,  in  order  to  have  : — 

20  francs — price  at  Brussels. 
15     "         protective  duty. 
o      "         transportation  by  railroad. 

40  francs — total,  at  cfjualized  prices. 

And  I  now  ask,  of  what  benefit,   under  these  cir- 
cumstances, is  the  railroad  ? 

Frankly,  is  it  not  humiliating  to  the  nineteenth 
century,  that  it  should  be  destined  to  transmit  to 
future  ages  the  example  of  such  ])uerilities  seriously 
and  gravely  practised  ?  To  be  the  dupe  of  another, 
is  bad  enough  ;  but  to  employ  all  the  forms  and 
ceremonies  of  legislation  in  order  to  cheat  one's 
&elf, — to  doubly  cheat  one's  self,  and  that  too  in  a 
mere  mathematical  account, — truly  this  is  calculated 
to  lower  a  little  the  pride  of  this  cjiliyhteiied  aye. 


88  SOPHISMS    OF    rKOÏECTION. 


X. 


KECiPKOcrrr. 

"We  liavo  just  seen  that  all  which  renders  trans- 
portation difhcult,  acts  in  the  same  manner  as  jDro- 
tection  ;  or,  if  the  expression  be  preferred,  that  pro- 
tection tends  toward  the  same  result  as  obstacles 
to  transportation. 

A  tariff  may  then  Ije  truly  spoken  of  as  a 
swamp,  a  rut,  a  steep  hill  ;  in  a  word,  an  ohstacle^ 
whose  effect  is  to  augment  the  difference  between 
the  price  of  consumption  and  that  of  production. 
It  is  equally  incontestable  that  a  swamp,  a  bog, 
etc.,  are  veritable  protective  tariffs. 

There  are  people  (few  in  number,  it  is  true,  but 
such  there  are)  who  begin  to  understand  that  ob- 
stacles are  not  the  less  obstacles  because  they  are 
artificially  created,  and  that  our  well-being  is  more 
advanced  by  freedom  of  trade  than  by  protection  ; 
precisely  as  a  canal  is  more  desirable  than  a  sandy, 
hilly,  and  dithcult  road. 

But  they  still  say,  this  liberty  ought  to  be  recipro- 
cal. If  we  take  off  our  taxes  in  favor  of  Spain, 
while  Spain  does  not  do  the  same  toward  us,  it  is 
evident  that  we  are  duped.  Let  us  then  make 
treaties  of  commerce  upon  the  basis  of  a  just  reciproc- 
ity ;  let  us  yield  where  we  are  yielded   to  ;  let  us 


KECIPKOUITV.  89 

make  tlie  sacrifice  of  buyirii^  tluit  wo  may  obtain 
the  advantai»;c  of  selling. 

Persons  who  reason  thns  are  (I  am  sorry  to  say), 
whether  they  know  it  or  not,  governed  by  the  pro- 
tectionist ])rinciplc.  They  are  only  a  little  more 
inconsistent  than  the  ])ure  protectionists,  as  these  are 
more  inconsistent  than  the  absolute  prohibitionists. 

I  will  illustrate  this  by  a  fable. 

Stdlta  and  Puera  (Fool-town  and  Bov-town). 

There  were,  it  matters  not  where,  two  towns, 
Stulta  and  Pucra,  which  at  great  expense  had  a  road 
built  wln'ch  connected  them  with  each  other.  Some 
time  after  this  was  done,  the  inhabitants  of  Stulta 
became  uneasy,  and  said.  Puera  is  overwhelming 
us  with  its  productions  ;  this  must  be  attended  to. 
They  established  therefore  a  corps  of  Obsiructor.<^,  so 
called  because  their  business  was  to  place  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  the  wagon  t.iins  which  arrived  from 
Puera.  Soon  after,  Puera  also  established  a  corps 
of  Obstructoivs. 

After  some  centuries,  people  having  becoiue  more 
enlightened,  the  inhabitants  of  Puera  l)egan  to  dis- 
cover that  these  reciprocal  obstacles  might  possibly 
be  reciprocal  injuries.  Thej  sent  therefore  an. 
ambassador  to  Stulta,  who  (passing  over  the  official 
phraseohjgy)  sjiokc  much  to  this  effect  :  "  We  have 
built  a  road,  and  now  we  put  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  this  road.      Tliis  is  altsiiid.      It  would  have  l>cen 


90  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

far  butter  to  have  left  things  in  tlicir  original  position, 
for  tlicn  we  would  not  have  been  put  to  the  expense 
of  building  our  road,  and  afterward  of  creating 
difficulties.  In  the  name  of  Puera,  I  come  to  pro- 
pose to  you,  not  to  renounce  at  once  our  system  of 
mutual  obstacles,  for  this  would  be  acting  according 
to  a  theory,  and  we  despise  theories  as  much  as  you 
do  ;  but  to  lighten  somewhat  these  obstacles,  weigh- 
ing at  the  same  time  carefully  our  respective 
sacrifices.''''  The  ambassador  having  thus  spoken, 
the  town  of  Stulta  asked  time  to  reflect  ;  manu- 
facturers and  agriculturists  were  consulted  ;  and  at 
last,  nfter  some  years'  deliberation,  it  was  declared 
that  the  negotiations  were  broken  oflf. 

At  this  news,  the  inhabitants  of  Puera  held  a 
council.  An  old  man  (who  it  has  always  been  sup- 
])osed  had  been  secretly  bribed  by  Siulta)  rose  and 
said  :  "  The  obstacles  raised  by  Siulta  are  injurious 
to  our  sales  ;  this  is  a  misfortune.  Those  which 
wo  ourselves  create,  injure  our  purchases  ;  this  is  a 
secoTul  mif fortune.  We  have  no  power  over  the 
first,  but  the  second  is  entii'cly  dependent  upon 
ourselves.  Let  us  then  at  least  get  rid  of  one,  since 
we  caimot  be  delivered  from  both.  Let  us  suppress 
our  corps  of  Ohstructors,  without  waiting  for  Stulta 
to  do  the  same.  Some  day  or  other  she  will  learn 
to  understand  better  her  own  interests." 

A  second  counsellor,  a  man  of  practice  and  of 
facts,  uncontrolled  by  theories  and  wise  in  ancestral 


RECIPROCITY,  91 

experience,  replied  :  "  We  must  not  listen  to  tliis 
dreamer,  this  theorist,  this  innovator,  this  Utopian, 
this  political  economist,  this  friend  to  Siulta.  We 
would  he  entirely  ruined  if  the  emharrassnients  of 
the  road  wei'e  not  carefully  weii^hcd  and  exactly 
equalized,  between  Stulta  and  Puera.  There 
would  be  more  difficulty  in  j2joing  than  in  coming  ; 
in  exportation  than  in  importation.  We  would  be, 
with  regard  to  Stulta^  in  the  inferior  condition  in 
which  Havre,  Nantes,  Bordeaux,  LisI)on,  London, 
Hamburg,  and  New  Orleans,  are,  in  relation  to  cities 
placed  higher  u))  the  rivers  Sciuo,  Loire,  Garonne, 
Tagus,  Thames,  the  F]lbe,  and  the  Mississipj^i  ;  for 
the  difficulties  of  ascending  must  always  be  greater 
than  those  of  descending  rivers.  (A  voice  ex- 
claims :  '  But  the  cities  near  the  mouths  of  rivers 
haA^e  always  })rospered  niore  than  those  higher  up 
tlie  stream.'')  This  is  not  ]")ossible.  (The  same 
voice:  '  I'ut  it  is  a  fact.')  Well,  they  have  then 
prospered  contrary  to  rule.''''  Such  conclusive  rea- 
soning staggered  the  assembly.  The  orator  went 
on  to  convince  them  thoroughly  and  conclusively 
by  speaking  of  national  independence,  national 
honor,  national  dignity,  national  labor,  overwhelm 
ing  importation,  tributes,  ruinous  competition.  In 
short,  he  succeeded  in  determining  the  assembly  to 
continue  their  system  of  obstacles,  and  I  can  now 
point  out  a  certain  country  where  you  may  sec  road- 
builders  and  Obstructors  working  with  the  best  pos- 


92  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

siblc  imderstandinsj,  by  tlic  dccreo  of  the  same 
legislative  assembly,  paid  by  tlie  same  citizens  ;  the 
first  to  improve  the  road,  the  last  to  embarrass  it. 


XI. 

ABSOLUTE    PRICES. 

If  we  wish  to  iudp::e  between  freedom  of  trade  and 
protection,  to  calculate  the  ]>robal)le  effect  of  any 
political  phenomenon,  we  should  notice  how  far 
its  influence  tends  to  the  production  of  ahuiulance 
or  scarcity^  and  not  simply  of  cheajjness  or  dear- 
71CSS  of  price.  We  must  beware  of  trustini:^  to  abso- 
lute prices,  it  would  lead   to  inextricable  confusion. 

Mr.  Mathieu  de  Dombasle,  after  having  estab- 
lished the  fact  that  protection  raises  prices,  adds  : 

"  The  augmentation  of  ])ricc  increases  the  ex- 
pciuses  of  life,  and  conseciuently  the  ]U'ice  of  labor, 
and  every  oikî  finds  in  the  increase  of  the  price  of 
his  produce  the  same  ])ro])orti()n  as  in  the  increase 
of  his  expenses.  Thus,  if  everybody  j^iys  as  con- 
sumer, everybody  receives  also  as  producer." 

It  is  evident  that  it  would  be  easy  to  reverse 
the  argument  and  say  :  If  everybody  receives  as 
producer,  everybody  must  pay  as  consumer. 

Now,  what  does  this  prove  ?     Nothing  whatever. 


ABSOLUTE   piiic?:s.  93 

unless  it  be  that  protection  ù'ansfers  riches,  uselessly 
and  unjustly.     Itobbery  does  the  same. 

Again,  to  prove  that  the  coni})licated  arrange- 
ments of  this  system  give  even  simple  compensa- 
tion, it  is  necessary  to  adhere  to  the  "  consequently^'' 
of  Mr.  do  Dombasle,  and  to  convince  one's  self  that 
the  price  of  labor  rises  with  that  of  the  articles  pro- 
tected. Tliis  is  a  question  of  fact,  which  I  refer  to 
Mr.  Moreau  de  Jonnès,  begging  him  to  examine 
whether  the  rate  ot  wages  was  found  to  increase 
with  the  stock  of  the  mines  of  Anzin.  For  my 
own  ])art  I  do  not  l)eheve  in  it,  because  I  think  that 
the  price  of  labor,  like  everytlnng  else,  is  governed 
by  the  proportion  existing  between  the  supply  and 
the  demand.  JXow  1  can  j^orfectly  well  understand 
that  restriction  will  diminish  the  supply  of  coal,  and 
consequently  raise  its  price  ;  but  I  do  not  as  clearly 
see  that  it  increases  the  demand  for  labor,  thereby 
raising  the  rate  ot  wages.  This  is  the  less  conceiv- 
able to  me,  because  the  sum  of  labor  required 
depends  upon  the  (juantity  ot  disposable  capital  ; 
and  i)rotection,  while  it  may  change  the  direction 
of  capital,  and  transfer  it  from  one  business  to 
another,  cannot  increase  it  one  penny. 

This  question,  which  is  of  the  highest  interest, 
we  \s\\\  examine  elsewhere.  1  return  to  the  discus- 
sion of  absolute  'prices,  and  declare  that  there  is  no 
absurdity  which  cannot  be  rendered  specious  by 
such  reasonmg  as  that  of  Mr    de  Dombasle. 


94r  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Imagine  an  isolated  nation  possessing  a  given 
quantity  of  casli,  and  every  year  wantonly  burning 
the  half  of  its  produce.  1  will  undertake  to  prove 
by  the  theory  of  Mr.  de  Dombasle  that  this  nation 
will  not  be  the  less  rich  in  consequence  of  such  a 
procedure. 

For,  the  result  of  the  conflagration  must  be,  that 
everything  would  double  in  price.  An  inventory 
made  before  this  event  would  offer  exactly  the  same 
nominal  value,  as  one  made  after  it.  Who,  then, 
would  be  the  loser  ?  If  John  buys  his  cloth  dearer, 
lie  also  sells  his  corn  at  a  higher  price  ;  and  if  Peter 
makes  a  loss  on  the  purchase  of  his  corn,  he  gains 
it  back  by  the  sale  of  his  cloth.  Thus  "  every  one 
finds  in  the  increase  of  the  price  of  his  produce, 
the  same  proportion  as  in  the  increase  of  his 
expenses  ;  and  thus  if  everybody  pays  as  consumer, 
everybody  also  receives  as  producer." 

All  this  is  nonsense.  The  simple  truth  is  :  that 
whether  men  destroy  their  corn  and  cloth  by  fire  or 
by  use,  the  effect  is  the  same  as  regaî'ds  price,  but  not 
as  regards  riches,  for  it  is  precisely  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  use,  that  riches— in  other  words,  com- 
fort, well-being — exist. 

Protection  may,  in  the  same  way,  while  it  lessens 
the  abundance  of  things,  raise  their  prices,  so  as  to 
leave  each  individual  as  rich,  numerically  sneaking, 
as  when  unembarrassed  by  it.  But  because  we  put 
dowm  in  an  inventory  three  hectolitres  of  corn  at 


dop:s  protection  raise  wages  ?  95 

20  francs,  or  four  liectolitres  at  15  francs,  and  sum 
up  the  nominal  value  of  each  at  60  francs,  does  it 
thence  follow  that  they  are  equally  capable  of  con- 
tributing to  the  necessities  of  the  community  ? 

To  this  view  of  consumption,  it  will  be  my  con- 
tinual endeavor  to  lead  the  protectionists  ;  for  in 
this  is  the  end  ol  all  my  efforts,  the  solution  of 
every  problem.  1  must  continually  repeat  to  them 
that  restriction,  by  impeding  commerce,  by  limiting 
the  division  ot  labor,  by  forcing  it  to  combat  diffi- 
culties of  situation  and  temperature,  must  in  its 
results  diminish  the  quantity  produced  by  any  fixed 
quantum  of  labor.  And  what  can  it  benefit  us  that 
the  smaller  quantity  produced  under  the  protective 
system  bears  the  same  iwmxnal  value  as  the  greater 
quantity  produced  under  the  free-trade  system  ? 
Man  does  not  live  on  noiinnal  values,  but  on  real 
articles  of  produce  ;  and  tlie  more  abundant  these 
articles  are,  no  matter  what  price  they  may  bear, 
the  richer  is  he. 


XII. 

does  protection  raise  the  rate  of  wages  ? 

Workmen,  your  situation  is  singular  !  you  are 
robbed,  as  I  will  presently  prove  to  you.  .  ,  .  But  no  ; 
I  retract  the  word  ;  we  must  avoid  an  expression 


96  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

whicli  is  violent  ;  perhaps  indeed  incorrect  ;  inas- 
much as  this  spoliation,  wrapped  in  the  sophisms 
which  disguise  it,  is  practised,  we  must  believe, 
without  the  intention  of  the  spoiler,  and  with  the 
consent  of  the  s])oiled.  But  it  is  nevertheless  true 
that  you  are  deprived  of  the  just  compensation  of 
your  labor,  while  no  one  thinks  of  causmg  justice 
to  be  rendered  to  you.  If  you  could  be  consoled 
by  Tioisy  appeals  to  philantliropy,  to  powerless 
charity,  to  degrading  alms-giving,  or  if  high-sound- 
ing words  would  relieve  you,  these  indeed  you  can 
have  in  abundance.  But  Justice,  simple  justice — 
nobody  thinks  of  rendering  you  this.  For  would  it 
not  he  just  that  after  a  long  day's  labor,  when  yon 
liave  received  your  little  wages,  you  should  be  per- 
mitted to  exchange  them  for  the  largest  possible 
sum  of  comforts  that  you  can  obtain  voluntarily 
from  any  man  whatsoever  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth  ? 

Let  us  examine  if  i?ijustice  is  not  done  to  you,  by 
the  legislative  limitation  of  the  persons  from  whom 
you  are  allowed  to  buy  those  things  which  you 
need — as  bread,  meat,  cotton  and  woollen  cloths, 
etc. — thus  fixing  (so  to  express  myself)  the  artificial 
price  which  these  articles  must  bear. 

Is  it  true  that  protection,  which  avowedly  raises 
prices,  and  thus  injures  you,  raises  proportionably 
the  rate  of  wages  ? 

On  what  does  the  rate  of  wages  depend  ? 


DOES    PROTECTION    RAISE    WAGES  ?  97 

One  of  your  own  class  has  eneroretically  said  : 
*'  When  two  workmen  run  after  a  master,  wages 
fall  ;  when  two  masters  run  after  a  workman,  wages 
rise.  '  ' 

Allow  me,  in  more  laconic  phrase,  to  employ  a 
more  scientific,  though  perhaps  a  less  striking  ex- 
pression :  "  The  rate  of  wages  depends  upon  the 
proportion  which  the  supply  of  labor  bears  to  the 
demand." 

On  what  depends  the  demand  for  labor  ? 

On  the  quantity  of  disposable  national  capital. 
And  the  law  which  says,  "  such  or  such  an  article 
shall  be  limited  to  home  production  and  no  longer 
imported  from  foreign  countries,"  can  it  in  any 
degree  increase  this  capital  ?  Not  in  the  least. 
This  law  may  withdraw  it  from  one  course,  and 
transfer  it  to  another  ;  but  cannot  increase  it  one 
penny.  Then  it  cannot  increase  the  demand  for 
labor. 

While  we  point  with  pride  to  some  prosperous 
manufacture,  can  we  answer.  From  whence  conies 
the  capital  with  which  it  is  founded  and  maintained  ? 
Has  it  fallen  from  the  moon  ?  or  rather  is  it  not 
drawn  either  from  agriculture,  or  navigation,  or 
other  industry  ?  We  here  see  why,  since  the  reign 
of  protective  tariffs,  if  we  see  more  workmen  in  our 
mines  and  our  manufacturing  towns,  we  find  also 
fewer  sailors  in  our  ports,  and  fewer  laborers  and 
vine-growers  in  our  fields  and  upon  our  hillsides. 


VS  SOPHISMS    OF    PR()TP:CTI0N. 

I  could  speak  at  g^rcat  Iciii^tli  upon  this  subject, 
but  prefer  illustratino;  my  thought  by  an  example. 

A  countryman  liad  twenty  acres  of  land,  with  a 
capital  of  1(»,000  francs.  He  divided  his  land  into 
four  parts,  and  adopted  for  it  the  following  changes 
of  crops  :  1st,  maize  ;  2d,  wheat  ;  3d,  clover  ;  and 
4th,  rye.  As  he  needed  for  himself  and  family  but 
a  small  portion  of  the  grain,  meat,  and  dairy-produce 
of  the  farm,  he  sold  the  surplus  and  bought  oil, 
Hax,  w^ine,  etc.  The  whole  of  his  capital  was  yearly 
distributed  in  wages  and  payments  of  accounts  to 
the  workmen  of  the  neighborhood.  This  capital 
was,  from  his  sales,  again  returned  to  him,  and  even 
increased  from  year  to  year.  Our  countryman, 
being  fully  convinced  that  idle  capital  produces 
nothing,  caused  to  circulate  among  the  working 
classes  this  annual  increase,  which  he  devoted  to  the 
inclosing  and  clearing  of  lands,  or  to  improvements 
in  his  farming  utensils  and  his  buildings.  He 
deposited  some  sums  in  reserve  in  the  hands  of  a 
neighboring  banker,  who  on  his  part  did  not  leave 
these  idle  in  his  strong  box,  but  lent  them  to  various 
tradesmen,  so  that  the  whole  came  to  be  usefully 
employed  in  the  payment  of  wages. 

The  countryman  died,  and  his  son,  become  master 
of  the  inheritance,  said  to  himself  :  "It  must  be 
confessed  that  n.iy  father  has,  all  his  life,  allowed 
himself  to  be  duped.  He  bought  oil,  and  thus  paid 
irihute  to  Provence,  while  our  own  land  could,  by  an 


DOES    PROTECTION    RAISE    WAGES  ?  99 

effort,  be  made  to  produce  olives.  He  bought  wine, 
flax,  and  oranges,  thus  paying  tribute  to  Brittany, 
Medoc,  and  the  Hiera  Islands  very  unnecessarily, 
for  wine,  flax,  and  oranges  may  be  forced  to  grow 
upon  our  own  lands.  He  paid  tribute  to  the  miller 
and  the  weaver  ;  our  own  servants  could  very  well 
weave  our  linen,  and  crush  our  wheat  between  two 
stones.  He  did  all  he  could  to  ruin  himself,  and 
gave  to  strangers  what  ought  to  have  been  kept  for 
the  benefit  of  his  own  household." 

Full  of  this  reasoning,  our  headstrong  fellow 
determined  to  change  the  routine  of  his  crops.  He 
divided  his  farm  into  twenty  parts.  On  one  he 
cultivated  the  olive  ;  on  another  the  mulberry  ;  on 
a  third  flax  ;  he  devoted  the  fourth  to  vines,  the 
fifth  to  wheat,  etc. ,  etc.  Thus  he  succeeded  in  ren- 
dering himself  independent,  and  furnished  all  his 
family  supplies  from  his  own  farm.  He  no  longer 
received  anything  from  the  general  circulation  ; 
neither,  it  is  tnie,  did  he  cast  anything  into  it. 
Was  he  the  richer  for  this  course  ?  No,  for  his 
land  did  not  suit  the  cultivation  of  the  vine  ;  nor 
was  the  climate  favorable  to  the  olive.  In  short, 
the  family  supply  of  all  these  articles  was  very 
inferior  to  what  it  had  been  during  the  time  when 
the  father  had  obtained  them  all  by  exchange  of 
produce. 

With  regard  to  the  demand  for  labor,  it  certainly 
was  no  greater  than  formerly.     There  were,  to  be 


100  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

sure,  five  times  as  many  fields  to  cultivate,  but  they 
were  five  times  smaller.  If  oil  was  raised,  there 
was  less  wheat  ;  and  because  there  was  no  more 
flax  bought,  neither  was  there  any  more  rye  sold. 
Besides,  the  farmer  could  not  spend  in  wages  more 
than  his  capital,  and  his  capital,  instead  of  increas- 
ing, was  now  constantly  diminishing.  A  great  part 
of  it  was  necessarily  devoted  to  numerous  build- 
ings and  utensils,  indispensable  to  a  person  who 
determines  to  undertake  everything.  In  short,  the 
supply  of  labor  continued  the  same,  but  the  means 
of  paying  becoming  less,  there  was,  necessarily,  a 
reduction  of  wages. 

The  result  is  precisely  similar,  when  a  nation 
isolates  itself  by  the  prohibitive  system.  Its  num- 
ber of  industrial  pursuits  is  certainly  multiplied, 
but  their  importance  is  diminished.  In  proportion 
to  their  number,  they  become  less  productive,  for 
the  same  capital  and  the  same  skill  are  ol)ligcd  to 
meet  a  greater  number  of  difficulties.  The  fixed 
capital  absorbs  a  greater  part  of  the  circulating  capi- 
tal ;  that  is  to  say,  a  greater  part  of  the  funds  destined 
to  the  payment  of  wages.  What  remains,  ramifies 
itself  in  vain,  the  quantity  cannot  be  augmented. 
It  is  like  the  water  of  a  pond,  which,  distributed  in 
a  multitude  of  reservoirs,  appears  to  be  more  abun- 
dant because  it  covers  a  greater  quantity  of  soil, 
and  presents  a  larger  sprfac^  to  the  sun,   while  wg 


DOES    PROTECTION    RAISE    WAGES  ?  101 

hardly  perceive  tliat,   precisely  on  this  account,   it 
absorbs,  eva))orates,  and  lo^es  Ltsolf  the  quu  kci-. 

Capital  and  labor  bcinir  gi\^en,  the  result  is,  ix  sum 
of  production,  always  tiie  less  great  i»i.rrpppj-tiqn 
as  oI)stacles  are  numerous.  There  can  be  "no  doubt 
that  protective  tariffs,  by  forcing  capital  and  labor 
to  struggle  against  greater  difficulties  of  soil  and 
climate,  must  cause  the  general  production  to  be 
less,  or,  in  other  words,  diminish  the  portion  of 
comforts  which  would  tlience  result  to  mankind. 
If,  then,  there  be  a  general  diminution  of  comforts, 
how,  workmen,  can  it  be  possible  that  your  portion 
should  be  increased  ?  Under  such  a  supposition, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  believe  that  the  rich,  tliose 
who  made  the  law,  have  so  arranged  matters  that 
not  only  they  subject  themselves  to  their  own  j)ro 
portion  of  the  general  loss,  but  taking  the  whole  of 
it  upon  themselves,  tliat  they  submit  also  to  a 
further  loss,  in  order  to  increase  your  gains.  Is 
this  credible  ?  Is  this  possible  ?  It  is,  indeed,  a 
most  suspicious  act  of  generosity,  and  if  you  act 
wisely,  you  will  reject  it. 


102  SOPHISMS   OF   PKOTECTION. 

■  •  ■  ■  ■  '  'TeEOFV— PRACTICE. 

Partisans  of  free  trade,  we  are  accused  of  being 
theorists,  and  not  relying  sufKeiently  upon  practice. 

Wliat  a  powerful  argument  against  Mr.  Say  (says 
Mr.  Ferrier)  is  the  long  succession  ol  distinguished 
ministers,  the  imposing  league  of  writers  who  have 
all  differed  from  him  ;  and  Mr.  Say  is  himself  con- 
scious of  this,  for  he  says  :  "  It  has  been  said,  in  sup- 
port of  old  errors,  that  there  must  necessarily  be 
some  foundation  for  ideas  so  generally  adopted  bj 
all  nations.  Ought  we  not,  it  is  asked,  to  distrust 
observations  and  reasoning  which  run  counter  to 
everythmg  which  has  been  looked  upon  as  certain 
up  to  this  day,  and  wdiich  has  been  regarded  as 
undoubted  by  so  many  who  were  to  be  confided  in, 
alike  on  account  of  their  learning  and  of  their 
philanthropic  intentions  ?  This  argument  is,  I  con- 
fess, calculated  to  make  a  profound  impression,  and 
might  cast  a  doubt  upon  the  most  incontestable 
facts,  if  the  world  had  not  seen  so  many  opinions, 
now  universally  recognized  as  false,  as  universally 
maintain,  during  a  long  series  of  ages,  their  domin- 
ion over  the  human  mind.  The  day  is  not  long 
passed  since  all  nations,  from  the  most  ignorant  to 
the  most   enlightened,   and  all   men,  the  widest   as 


THKORY— riiACTlCE.  103 

well  as  the  most  uninformed,  admitted  only  four 
elements.  Nobody  dreamed  of  dis])uting  this  doc- 
trine, which  is,  nevertheless,  false,  and  to-day  uni- 
versally decried." 

Upon  this  passage  Mr,  Ferrier  makes  the  follow- 
ing remarks  : 

"  Mr.  Say  is  strangely  mistaken,  if  he  believes 
that  lie  has  thus  answered  the  very  strong  objections 
which  he  has  himself  advanced.  It  is  natural 
enough  that,  for  ages,  men  otherwise  well  informed, 
might  mistake  upon  a  question  of  natural  history  ; 
this  proves  nothing.  Water,  air,  earth,  and  fire, 
elements  or  not,  were  not  the  less  useful  to  man. 
....  Such  errors  as  this  are  of  no  importance. 
They  do  not  lead  to  revolutions,  nor  do  they  cause 
mental  uneasiness  ;  above  all,  they  clash  with  no 
interests,  and  might,  therefore,  without  inconven- 
ience, last  for  millions  of  years.  The  physical 
world  progresses  as  though  they  did  not  exist. 
But  can  it  be  thus  with  errors  which  affect  the 
moral  world  ?  Can  it  be  conceived  that  a  system 
of  government  absolutely  false,  consequently  inju- 
rious, could  be  followed  for  many  centuries,  and 
among  many  nations,  with  the  general  consent  of 
w«ll-infornied  men  i  Can  it  be  explained  how  such 
a  system  could  be  connected  with  the  constantly 
increasing  prosperity  of  these  nations  ?  Mr.  Say 
confesses  that  the  argument  which  he  combats  is 
calculated  to  make  a  profound  impression.     Most 


104  SOPHISMS    OK    PROTECTION. 

certainly  it  is  ;  ;ind  tliis  impression  remains  ;  for 
Mr.  Say  has  ratliei  increased  tlian  diminislied  it." 

Let  iK-^  liear  Mr    de  Saint  Chamans. 

"  It  has  been  only  toward  the  middle  of  the 
last,  the  eighteenth  century,  when  every  subject  and 
every  principle  have  M'ithout  exception  been  given 
up  to  the  discussion  of  book-makers,  that  these  fur- 
nishers of  speculative  ideas,  applied  to  everything 
and  applicable  to  notliing,  have  begun  to  write 
upon  the  subject  of  political  economy.  There  ex- 
isted previously  a  system  of  political  economy,  not 
written,  but  practised  by  governments.  Colbert 
was,  it  is  said,  the  inventor  of  it  ;  and  Colbert  gave 
the  law  to  every  state  of  Europe.  Strange  to  say, 
he  does  so  still,  in  spite  of  contempt  and  anathe- 
mas, in  spite  too  of  the  discoveries  of  the  modern 
school.     This  system,  which  has  been  called  by  our 

writers  the  mercantile  system,  consisted  in 

checking  by  prohibition  or  import  duties  such 
foreign  productions  as  were  calculated  to  ruin  our 

manufactures  by  competition This  system 

has  been  declared,  by  all  writers  on  political  econ- 
omy, of  every  school,*  to  be  weak,  absurd,  and 
calculated  to  impoverish  the  countries  where  it  pre- 


*  Might  we  not  say  :  It  is  a  powerful  argument  against  Messrs.  Ferrier 
and  de  Saint  Ciiamans,  that  all  writers  on  political  economy,  ot  every  fc'iool, 
that  is  to  say,  all  men  who  have  studied  the  question,  come  to  this  conclu- 
sion :  After  all,  freedom  is  better  Ihau  restriction,  and  tnc  laws  of  God 
.wiser  than  those  of  Mr.  Colbert. 


1 


THEORY  — PRACTICE.  105 

vails.  Banished  from  books,  it  lias  taken  refuge  in 
tlie  ])ractice  of  all  nations,  greatly  to  the  surprise 
of  those  \\\\o  cannot  conceive  that  in  what  concerns 
the  wealth  of  nations,  governments  should,  rather 
than  be  guided  by  the  wisdom  of  authors,  prefer 

the  long  experience  of  a  system,  etc It  is 

above  all  inconceivable  to  them  that  the    French 

government should  obstinately  resist  the 

new  lights  of  political  economy,  and  maintain  in 
its  practice  the  old  errors,  pointed  out  by  all  our 

writers But  I  am  devoting  too  much  time 

to  this  mercantile  system,  which,  unsustained  by 
writers,  has  only  facts  in  its  favor  !'  ' 

Would  it  not  be  supposed  from  this  language 
that  political  economists,  in  claiming  for  each  indi- 
vidual ÛiQfree  disposition  of  his  own  property,  have, 
like  the  Fourierists,  stumbled  upon  some  new, 
strange,  and  chimerical  system  of  social  govern- 
ment, some  wild  theory,  without  precedent  in  the 
annals  of  human  nature  ?  It  does  appear  to  me, 
that,  if  in  all  this  there  is  anything  doubtful,  and 
of  fanciful  or  theoretic  origin,  it  is  not  free  trade, 
but  protection  ;  not  the  operating  of  exchanges,  but 
the  custom-house,  the  duties,  imposed  to  overturn 
artificially  the  natural  order  of  things. 

The  question,  however,  is  not  here  to  compare 
and  judge  of  the  merits  of  the  two  systems,  but 
simply  to  know  which  of  the  two  is  sanctioned  by 
experience. 


106  SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION. 

You,  Messrs.  Monopolists,  maintain  tlvdtfacts  are 
for  you,  and  that  we  on  our  side  liave  only   tlieory. 

You  even  Hatter  yourselves  that  this  long  series 
of  public  acts,  this  old  experience  of  Europe  which 
you  invoke,  appeared  imposing  to  Mr.  Say  ;  and  I 
confess  that  he  has  not  refuted  you,  with  his  habit- 
ual sagacity. 

I,  for  my  part,  cannot  consent  to  give  up  to  you 
the  domain  of  facts  y  foi  while  on  your  side  you 
can  advance  only  limited  and  special  facts,  we  can 
oppose  to  them  universal  facts,  the  free  and  volun- 
tary acts  of  all  men. 

What  do  we  maintain  ?  and  what  do  you  main- 
tain ? 

We  maintain  that  "  it  is  best  to  buy  from  others 
what  we  ourselves  can  produce  only  at  a  higher 
price." 

You  maintain  that  "  it  is  best  to  make  for  our- 
selves, even  though  it  should  cost  us  more  than  to 
buy  from  others." 

Now,  gentlemen,  putting  aside  theory,  demon- 
stration, reasoning  (things  which  seem  to  nauseate 
you),  which  of  these  assertions  is  sanctioned  by 
universal  practice  ? 

Visit  our  fields,  workshops,  forges,  stores  ;  look 
above,  below,  and  around  you  ;  examine  what  is 
passing  in  your  own  household  ;  observe  your  own 
actions  at  every  moment,  and  say  which  principle 
it  is  that  directs  these  laborers,  workmen,  contrac- 


THEORY — PRACTICE.  107 

tors,  and  merchants  ;  say  what  is  your  own  per- 
sonal practice. 

Does  the  agriculturist  make  his  own  clothes  ? 
Does  the  tailor  produce  the  grain  which  he  con- 
sumes ?  Does  not  your  housekeeper  cease  to  make 
her  bread  at  home,  a&  soon  as  she  finds  it  more 
economical  to  buy  it  from  the  baker  ?  Do  you  lay 
down  your  pen  to  take  up  the  blacking-brush  m 
order  to  avoid  paying  tribute  to  the  shoeblack  ? 
Does  not  the  whole  economy  of  society  depend  up- 
on a  separation  of  occupations,  a  division  of  labor — 
in  a  word,  upon  m.utual  exchange  of  production,  by 
which  we,  one  and  all,  make  a  calculation  which 
causes  us  to  discontinue  direct  production,  when  in- 
direct acquisition  offers  us  a  saving  of  time  and 
labor  ? 

You  are  not  then  sustained  hy  practice,  since  it 
would  be  impossible,  were  you  to  search  the  world, 
to  show  us  a  single  man  who  acts  according  to  your 
principle. 

You  may  answer  that  you  never  intended  to 
make  your  principle  the  rule  of  individual  relations. 
You  confess  that  it  would  thus  destroy  all  social 
ties,  and  force  men  to  the  isolated  life  of  snails. 
You  only  contend  that  it  governs  in  fact,  the  rela- 
tions which  are  established  between  the  agglomera- 
tions of  the  human  family. 

We  say  that  this  assertion  too  is  erroneous.  A 
family,  a  town,  county,  department,  province,  all 


108  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

are  so  many  agglomerations,  wliicli,  witliont  any 
exception,  all  'practically  reject  3'oiu-  principle  ; 
never,  indeed,  even  think  of  it.  Each  of  these 
procures  by  barter,  what  would  be  more  expen- 
sively procured  by  production.  Nations  would  do 
the  same,  did  you  not  hy  force  prevent  them. 

We,  then,  are  the  men  who  are  guided  by  practice 
and  experience.  For  to  combat  the  interdict  which 
you  have  specially  put  upon  some  international 
exchanges,  we  bring  forward  the  practice  and 
experience  of  all  individuals,  and  of  all  agglomera- 
tions of  individuals,  whose  acts  being  voluntary, 
render  them  proper  to  be  given  as  proof  in  the 
question.  But  you,  on  your  part,  begin  by y«9r<?m^, 
by  hindering,  and  then,  adducing  forced  or  forbid- 
den acts,  you  exclaim  :  "  Look  ;  we  can  prove  our- 
selves justified  by  example  !" 

You  exclaim  against  owv  theory,  and  even  against 
all  theory.  But  are  you  certain,  in  laying  down 
your  principles,  so  antagonistic  to  ours,  that  you  too 
are  not  building  up  theories  ?  Truly,  you  too  have 
your  theory  ;  but  between  yours  and  ours  there  is 
this  difierence  : 

Our  theory  is  formed  upon  the  observation  of 
universal  facts,  universal  sentiments,  universal  cal- 
cnlations  and  acts.  We  do  nothing  more  than 
classify  and  arrange  these,  in  order  to  better  under- 
stand them.  It  is  so  little  opposed  to  practice,  that 
it  is  in  fact  ox^W  practice  explained.     We  look  upon 


THEORY — PRACTICE.  109 

the  actions  of  men  as  prompted  by  the  instinct  of 
self-preservation  and  of  pro2;rcss.  What  they  do 
freely,  willingly — this  is  what  we  call  Political 
JEconomy,  or  economy  of  society.  We  must  repeat 
constantly  that  each  man  is  ijracticaUij  an  excellent 
political  economist,  producing  or  exchanging  as  his 
advantage  dictates.  Each  by  experience  raises  him- 
self to  the  science  ;  or  rather  the  science  is  nothing 
more  than  experience,  scrupulously  observed  and 
methodically  expounded. 

But  your  theory  is  theory  in  the  worst  sense  of  the 
word.  You  imagine  procedures  wdiich  are  sanc- 
tioned by  the  experience  of  no  living  man,  and 
then  call  to  your  aid  constraint  and  prohibition. 
You  cannot  avoid  liaving  recourse  to  force  ;  because, 
wishing  to  make  men  produce  what  they  can  more 
advantageously  buy,  you  require  them  to  give  up  an 
advantage,  and  to  be  led  by  a  doctrine  whicii  im- 
plies contradiction  even  in  its  terms. 

I  defy  you,  too,  to  take  tliis  doctrine,  which  by 
your  own  avowal  would  be  absurd  in  individual 
relations,  and  apply  it,  even  in  speculation,  to  trans- 
actions between  families,  towns,  departments,  or 
provinces.  You  yourselves  confess  that  it  is  only 
applicable  to  internal  relations. 

Thus  it  is  that  you  are  daily  forced  to  repeat  : 

"  Principles  can  never  be  nni versai.  What  is 
well  in  an  individual,  a  family,  commune,  or  prov- 
ince, is  ill  in  a  nation.     What  is  good  in  detail  - 


110  SOPHISMS  OF  protï:ction. 

for  instance  :  purchase  rather  than  production, 
where  purchase  is  more  advantageous — is  had  in  a 
society.  The  political  economy  of  individuals  is 
not  that  of  nations  ;"  and  other  such  idle  stufl:, 
ejusdein  far  inœ. 

And  all  this  for  what  ?  To  prove  to  us  that  we 
consumers,  we  are  your  property  !  tha^  ne  belong 
to  you,  soul  and  body  !  that  you  have  an  exclusive 
right  on  our  stomachs  and  our  limbs  !  that  it  is  your 
right  to  feed  and  dress  us  at  your  own  price,  how- 
ever great  your  ignorance,  your  rapacity,  or  the 
inferiority  of  your  work. 

Truly,  then,  your  system  is  one  not  founded 
upon  practice  ;  it  is  one  of  abstraction — of  extor- 
tion. 


XIV. 

CONFLICTING    PRINCIPLES. 

There  is  one  thing  which  embarrasses  me  not  a 
little  ;  and  it  is  this  : 

Sincere  men,  taking  upon  the  subject  of  political 
economy  the  point  of  view  of  producers,  have 
arrived  at  this  double  formula  : 

"  A  government  should  dispose  of  consumers 
subject  to  its  laws  in  favor  of  home  industry." 

"  It  should  subject  to  its  laws  foreign  consumers, 


CONFLICTING     PRINCirLP:S.  Ill 

in  order  to  dispose  of  tliem  in  favor  of  home 
industr3\" 

The  first  of  the  formulas  is  tliat  of  Protection  / 
the  second  that  of  Outlets. 

Both  rest  upon  this  proposition,  called  the  Bal- 
ance of  Trade,  that 

"  A  peo])le  is  impoverished  by  importations  and 
enriched  by  exportations." 

For  if  every  foreign  purchase  is  a  trihute  paid,  a 
loss,  nothing  can  be  more  natural  than  to  restrain, 
even  to  prohibit  importations. 

And  if  every  foreign  sale  is  a  tribute  received,  a 
gain,  nothing  more  natural  than  to  create  outlets, 
even  by  force. 

Protective  System  y  Colonial  System. — These 
arc  only  two  aspects  of  the  same  theory.  To  pre- 
vent our  citizens  from  buying  from  foreigners,  and 
to  force  foreigners  to  buy  from  our  citizens.  Two 
consequences  of  one  identical  principle. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  perceive  that,  according  to 
this  doctrine,  if  it  be  true,  the  welfare  of  a  country 
depends  upon  monoply  or  domestic  spoliation,  and 
upon  conquest  or  foreign  spoliation. 

Let  us  take  a  glance  into  one  of  these  huts, 
perched  upon  the  side  of  our  Pyrenean  range. 

The  father  of  a  family  has  received  the  little 
wages  of  his  labor  ;  but  his  half-naked  children  are 
shivering  before  a  biting  northern  blast,  beside  a 
fireless  hearth,  and  an  empty  table.     There  is  wool, 


112  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTECTION. 

and  wood,  and  corn,  on  the  other  side  of  the 
mountain,  but  these  are  forbidden  to  them  ;  for  the 
other  side  of  the  mountain  is  not  France.  Foreign 
wood  must  not  warm  the  liearth  of  the  poor  shep- 
herd ;  his  children  must  not  taste  the  bread  of  Bis- 
cay, nor  cover  their  numbed  limbs  with  the  wool  of 
Navarre.     It  is  thus  that  the  general  good  requires  ! 

The  disposing  by  law  of  consumers,  forcing  them 
to  the  support  of  home  industry,  is  an  encroachment 
upon  their  liberty,  the  forbidding  of  an  action 
(mutual  exchange)  which  is  in  no  way  opposed  to 
morality  !     In  a  word,  it  is  an  act  of  injustice. 

But  this,  it  is  said,  is  necessary,  or  else  home 
labor  will  be  arrested,  and  a  severe  blow  will  be 
given  to  public  prosperity. 

Thus  then  we  must  come  to  the  melancholy  con- 
clusion, that  there  is  a  radical  incompatibility 
between  the  Just  and  the  Useful, 

Again,  if  each  people  is  interested  in  selling,  and 
not  in  huying,  a  violent  action  and  reaction  must 
form  the  natural  state  of  their  mutual  relations  ;  for 
each  will  seek  to  force  its  productions  upon  all,  and 
all  will  seek  to  repidse  the  productions  of  each. 

A  sale  in  fact  implies  a  purchase,  and  since, 
according  to  this  doctrine,  to  sell  is  beneficial,  and 
to  buy  injurious,  every  international  transaction 
must  imply  the  benetlting  of  one  people  by  the 
injuring  of  another. 

But  men  are  invincibly  inclined  to  what  they  feel 


CONFLICTING     PRINCIPLES.  113 

to  be  advantageous  to  themselves,  while  they  also 
instinctively  resist  that  which  is  injurious.  From 
hence,  then,  we  must  infer  that  each  nation  bears 
within  itself  a  natural  force  of  expansion,  and  a  not 
less  natural  force  of  resistance,  which  are  equally 
injurious  to  all  others.  In  other  words,  antagonism 
and  war  are  the  natural  state  of  human  society. 

Thus  then  the  theory  in  discussion  resolves  itself 
into  the  two  following  axioms.  In  the  affairs  of  a 
nation. 

Utility  is  incompatiI)le  with  the  internal  adminis- 
tration of  justice. 

Utility  is  incompatible  with  the  maintenance  of 
external  peace. 

Well,  M'hat  embarrasses  and  confounds  me  is,  to 
explain  how  any  writer  upon  public  rights,  any 
statesman  M'ho  has  sincerely  adopted  a  doctrine  of 
Avhich  tlie  leading  piinciple  is  so  antagonistic  to 
other  incontestable  principles,  can  enjoy  one  mo- 
ment's repose  or  peace  of  mind. 

For  myself,  if  such  were  my  entrance  upon  the 
threshold  of  science,  if  I  did  not  clearly  perceive 
that  Liberty,  Utility,  Justice,  and  Peace  are  not 
only  compatible,  but  closely  coimected,  even  identi- 
cal, I  would  endeavor  to  forget  all  I  have  learned  ; 
I  would  say  : 

"  Can  it  be  possible  that  God  can  allow  men  to 
attain  prosperity  only  through  injustice  and  war? 
Can  he  so  direct  the  affairs  of  mortals  that  they  can 


114  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

only  renounce  war  and  injustice  by,  at  tlie  same 
time,  renouncinty  tlieir  own  welfare  ? 

"  Am  1  not  deceived  by  the  false  lights  of  a 
science  which  can  lead  me  to  the  horrible  blasphemy 
implied  in  this  alternative,  and  shall  1  dare  to  take 
it  upon  myself  to  propose  this  as  a  basis  for  the 
legislation  of  a  great  people  ?  When  I  find  a  long 
succession  of  illustrious  and  learned  men,  whose 
researches  in  the  same  science  have  led  to  more  con- 
soling results  ;  who,  after  having  devoted  their  lives 
to  its  study,  affirm  that  through  it  they  see  Liberty 
and  Utility  indissolubly  linked  with  Justice  and 
Peace,  and  tind  these  great  principles  destined  to 
continue  on  through  eternity  in  infinite  parallels, 
have  they  not  in  tlieir  favor  the  presumption  which 
results  from  all  that  we  know  of  the  goodness  and 
wisdom  of  God  as  manifested  in  the  sublime  harmo- 
ny of  material  creation  ?  Can  1  lightly  believe,  in 
opposition  to  such  a  presumption  and  such  imposing 
authorities,  that  this  same  God  has  been  pleased  to 
put  disagreement  and  antagonism  in  the  laws  of  the 
moral  world  ?  No  ;  before  I  can  believe  that  all 
social  principles  oppose,  shock  and  neutralize  each 
other  ;  before  I  can  think  them  inconstant,  anar- 
chical, and  eternal  conflict  ;  above  all,  before  I  can 
seek  to  impose  upon  my  fellow-citizens  the  impious 
system  to  which  my  reasonings  have  led  me,  I  must 
retrace  my  steps,  hoping,  perchance,  to  find  some 
point  where  1  have  wandered  from  my  road." 


KKCIPROCITY    AGAIN.  115 

And  if,  after  a  sincere  investigation  twenty  times 
repeated,  I  should  still  arrive  at  the  frightful  con- 
clusion that  I  am  driven  to  choose  between  the 
Desirable  and  the  Good,  1  would  reject  the  science, 
plunge  into  a  voluntary  ignorance,  above  all,  avoid 
participation  in  the  atfairs  of  my  country,  and  leave 
to  others  the  weight  and  responsibility  of  so  fearful 
a  clioice. 


XV. 

RECiPRocrrv  again. 

Mr.  de  Saint  Ckicq  has  asked,  "  Are  we  sure 
that  our  foreign  customers  will  buy  from  us  as 
much  as  they  sell  us  ?" 

Mr.  de  Dombasle  says  :  "  What  reason  liave  we 
for  believing  that  English  producers  will  come  to 
seek  their  supplies  from  us,  rather  than  from  any 
other  nation,  or  that  they  will  take  from  us  a  value 
equivalent  to  their  exportations  into   France  V 

I  cannot  but  wonder  to  see  men  who  boast, 
above  all  things,  of  ham^i; practical,  thus  reasoning 
wide  of  all  practice  ! 

In  practice,  there  is  perhaps  no  traffic  which  is  a 
direct  exchange  of  produce  for  f/roduce.  Since  the 
use  of  money,  no  man  says,  I  will  seek  shoes,  hats, 
advice,  lessons,  only  from  the  shoemaker,  the  hatter. 


116  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

the  lawyer,  or  tencher,  who  will  Iniy  from  me  the 
exact  equivalent  of  these  in  corn.  Why  should 
nations  impose  upon  themselves  so  troublesome  a 
restraint  ? 

Suppose  a  nation  without  any  exterior  relations. 
One  of  its  citizens  makes  a  crop  of  corn.  He  casts 
it  into  the  national  circulation,  and  receives  in 
exchange  — what  ?  Money,  bank  bills,  securities, 
divisible  to  any  extent,  by  means  of  \vliich  it  will 
be  lawful  for  him  to  witlidraw  when  he  pleases, 
and,  unless  prevented  by  just  competition  from  the 
national  circulation,  such  articles  as  he  may  wish. 
At  the  end  of  the  operation,  he  will  have  withdrawn 
from  the  mass  the  exact  equivalent  of  what  he  first 
cast  into  it,  and  in  value,  his  consumption  will 
exactly  equal  his  production. 

If  the  exchanges  of  this  nation  with  foreign 
nations  are  free,  it  is  no  longer  into  the  national 
circulation  but  into  the  general  circulation  that  each 
individual  casts  his  produce,  and  from  thence  his 
consumption  is  drawn.  He  is  not  obliged  to  cal- 
culate whether  what  he  casts  into  this  general 
circulation  is  purchased  by  a  countryman  or  by  a 
foreigner  ;  whether  the  notes  he  receives  are  given 
to  him  by  a  Frenchman  or  an  Englishman,  or 
whether  the  articles  which  he  procures  througli 
means  of  this  money  are  manufactured  on  this  or 
the  other  side  of  the  Rhine  or  the  Pyrenees.  One 
thinof  is  certain  :  that  each  individual  finds  an  exact 


RECIPnoCITY    AGAIN. 


117 


balance  between  wliat  lie  casts  in  and  what  lie  with- 
draws from  the  great  common  reservoir  ;  and  if 
this  be  true  of  each  individual,  it  is  not  less  true 
of  the  entire  nation. 

The  only  ditference  between  these  two  cases  is, 
that  in  the  last,  each  individual  has  opened  to  him  a 
larger  market  both  for  his  sales  and  his  purchases, 
and  has,  consequently,  a  more  favorable  opportunity 
of  making  both  to  advantage. 

The  objection  advanced  against  us  here,  is,  that 
if  all  were  to  combine  in  not  withdrawing  from 
circulation  the  produce  from  any  one  individual, 
he,  in  his  turn,  could  withdraw  nothing  from  the 
mass.  The  same,  too,  would  be  the  case  with 
regard  to  a  nation. 

Our  answer  is  :  If  a  nation  can  no  longer  with- 
draw anything  from  the  mass  of  circulation,  neither 
,will  it  any  longer  cast  anything  into  it.  It  will 
work  for  itself.  It  will  be  obliged  to  submit  to 
\what,  in  advance,  you  wish  to  force  upon  it,  viz.. 
Isolation.  And  here  you  have  the  ideal  of  the 
prohibitive  system. 

Truly,  then,  is  it  not  ridiculous  enough  that  you 
should  inflict  upon  it  now,  and  unnecessarily,  this 
system,  merely  through  fear  that  some  day  or  other 
it  might  chance  to  be  subjected  to  it  without  your 
assistance  ? 


118  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION-. 


XVL 

OBSTRUCTEn    RIVERS    PLEADING    FOR    THE    PROHIBI- 
TIONISTS. 

Some  years  since,  being  at  Madrid,  1  went  to  the 
meeting  of  the  Cortes.  The  subject  in  discussion 
was  a  proposed  treaty  with  Portugal,  for  improving 
the  channel  of  the  Douro.  A  member  rose  and 
said  :  If  the  Douro  is  made  navigable,  transporta- 
tion must  become  cheaper,  and  Portuguese  grain 
will  come  into  formidable  competition  with  our 
national  lahor.  I  vote  against  the  project,  unless 
ministers  will  agree  to  increase  our  tariff  so  as  tore- 
establish  the  equilibrium. 

Three  months  after,  I  was  in  Lisbon,  and  the 
same  question  came  before  the  Senate.  A  noble 
Hidalgo  said  :  Mr.  President,  the  project  is  absm*d. 
You  guard  at  great  expense  the  banks  of  the 
Douro,  to  prevent  the  influx  into  Portugal  of 
Spanish  grain,  and  at  the  same  time  you  now 
propose,  at  great  expense,  to  facilitate  such  an  event. 
There  is  in  this  a  want  of  consistency  in  which  I 
can  have  no  part.  Let  the  Douro  descend  to  our 
sons  as  we  have  received  it  from  our  fathers. 


A   NEGATIVE    KAILKOAD.  119 

XYII. 
A     NEGATIVE     RAILROAD. 

I  HAVE  already  remarked  that  when  the  observer 
has  unfortuuatel}'  taken  his  point  of  view  from  the 
position  of  producer,  lie  cannot  fail  in  his  conclusions 
to  clash  with  tlie  general  interest,  because  the  pro- 
ducer, as  such,  must  desire  the  existence  of  efforts, 
wants,  and  obstacles. 

I  find  a  singular  exemplification  of  this  remark 
in  a  journal  of  Bordeaux. 

Mr.  Simiot  puts  this  question  : 

Ought  the  railroad  from  Paris  into  Spain  to  pro- 
sent  a  break  or  terminus  at  Bordeaux  ? 

This  question  he  answers  affirmativelj.  I  will 
only  consider  one  among  the  numerous  reasons 
which  he  adduces  in  support  of  his  opinion. 

The  railroad  from  Paris  to  Bayonne  ought  (he 
says)  to  present  a  break  or  terminus  at  Bordeaux,  in 
order  that  goods  and  travellers  stopping  in  this  city 
should  thus  be  forced  to  contribute  to  the  profits  of 
the  boatmen,  porters,  commission  merchants,  liotel- 
keepers,   etc. 

It  is  very  evident  that  we  have  here  again  the 
interest  of  the  agents  of  labor  put  before  that  of 
the  consumer. 

But  if  Bordeaux  would  profit  by  a  break  in  the 


120  SOPHISMS    OF    I'KOTICCTION. 

road,  and  if  such  ])rofit  be  confoi'inable  to  the  public 
interest,  tlien  Angoulcme,  Poictiers,  Tours,  Orleans, 
and  still  more  all  the  intermediate  ])oints,  as  Ruffec, 
Châtellerault,  etc.,  etc.,  would  also  petition  for 
breaks  ;  and  this  too  would  be  for  the  general  good 
and  for  the  interest  of  national  labor.  For  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  these 
breaks  or  termini,  will  be  the  increase  in  consign- 
ments, commissions,  lading,  unlading,  etc.  This 
system  furnishes  ns  the  idea  of  a  railroad  made  up 
of  successive  breaks  :  a  negative  railroad. 

Whether  or  not  the  Protectionists  will  allow  it, 
most  certain  it  is,  that  tlie  restrictive  principle  is 
identical  with  that  which  would  maintain  this  sys- 
tem of  breaks:  it  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  consumer 
to  the  producer,  of  the  end  to  the  means. 


XVIII. 
"there  arp:  no  absolute  principles." 

The  facility  with  which  men  resign  themselves  to 
ignorance  in  cases  where  knowledge  is  all-important 
to  them,  is  often  astonishing  ;  and  we  may  be  sure 
that  a  man  has  determined  to  rest  in  his  ignorance 
when  he  once  brings  himself  to  proclaim  as  a  maxim 
that  there  are  no  absolute  principles. 

We  enter  into  the  legislative  halls,  and  find  that 


"  THEKE    AKE    NO    ABSOLUTE    PKINCU'LES."        121 

the  question  is,  to  determine  whether  the  law  will 
or  will  not  allow  of  international  exchanges. 

A  deputy  rises  and  says,  If  we  tolerate  these  ex^ 
changes,  foreign  nations  will  overwhelm  us  with 
their  produce.  We  will  have  cotton  goods  from 
England,  coal  from  Belgium,  woollens  from  Sjxiin, 
silks  from  Italy,  cattle  from  Switzerland,  iron  from 
Sweden,  corn  from  Prussia,  so  that  no  industrial 
pursuit  will  any  longer  be  possible  to  us. 

Another  answers  :  Prohibit  these  exchanges,  and 
the  divers  advantages  with  which  nature  has  en- 
dowed these  different  countries,  will  be  for  us  as 
though  they  did  not  exist.  We  will  have  no  share 
in  the  benetits  resulting  from  English  skill,  or 
Belgian  mines,  from  the  fertility  of  the  Polish  soil, 
or  the  Swiss  pastures  ;  neither  will  we  profit  by 
the  cheapness  of  Spanish  labor,  or  the  heat  of  the 
Italian  climate.  We  will  be  oI)ligcd  to  seek  by  a 
forced  and  laborious  ])roduction,  what,  l)y  means  of 
exchanges,  would  be  much  more  easily  obtained. 

Assuredly  one  or  other  of  these  deputies  is  mis- 
taken. But  wliich  ?  It  is  worth  the  trouble  of  ex- 
amining. There  lie  before  us  two  roads,  one  of 
which  leads  inevitably  to  wretcJtedness.  We  luusl: 
choose. 

To  throw  off  the  feeling  of  responsibility,  tliL» 
answer  is  easy  :  There  are  no  absolute  princi])les. 

This  maxim,  at  present  so  fashionable,  not  cmly 
pleases  idleness,  but  also  suits  ambition. 


122  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

If  eitlicr  the  theory  of  proliihition,  or  that  of  free 
trade,  shoukî  finally  triumph,  one  little  law  would 
form  our  whole  economical  code.  In  the  first  case 
this  would  be  :  foreign  trade  is  forVidden  /  in  the 
&CQ.o\\i\:  foreign  trade  is  free  i  and  thus,  many  great 
personages  would  lose  their  importance. 

But  if  trade  has  no  distinctive  character,  if  it  is 
capriciously  useful  or  injurious,  and  is  governed  by 
no  natural  law,  if  it  finds  no  spur  in  its  usefulness, 
no  check  in  its  inutility,  if  its  effects  cannot  be  ap- 
preciated by  those  who  exercise  it  ;  in  a  word,  if  it 
has  no  absolute  principles — oh  !  then  it  is  necessary 
to  deliberate,  weigh,  and  regulate  transactions,  the 
conditions  of  labor  must  be  equalized,  the  level  of 
])roHts  sought.  This  is  an  important  charge,  well 
calculated  to  give  to  those  who  execute  it  large 
salaries  and  extensive  infiuence. 

Contemplating  this  great  city  of  Paris,  I  have 
thought  to  myself  :  Here  are  a  million  of  human 
beings  who  would  die  in  a  few  days  if  provisions 
of  every  kind  did  not  flow  in  toward  this  vast  me- 
tropolis. The  imagination  is  unable  to  calculate  the 
multiplicity  of  objects  which  to-morrow  must  enter 
its  gates,  to  prevent  the  life  of  its  inhabitants  from 
terminating  in  famine,  riot,  or  pillage.  And  j^et  at 
this  moment  all  are  asleep,  without  feeling  one 
moment's  uneasiness,  from  the  contemplation  of  this 
frightful  possibility.  On  the  other  side,  we  see 
eighty   departments  who   have    this    day   labored. 


"there  are  no  absolute  principles."      123 

without  concert,  without  mutual  understanding,  for 
the  victualling  of  Paris.  How  can  each  day  bring 
just  what  is  necessary,  nothing  less,  nothing  more, 
to  this  gigantic  market  ?  What  is  the  ingenious 
and  secret  power  which  presides  over  the  astonish- 
ing regularity  of  such  complicated  movements,  a 
regularity  in  which  we  all  have  so  implicit,  though 
thoughtless,  a  faith  ;  on  which  our  comfort,  our  very 
existence  depends  ?  This  power  is  an  absolute  pi'in- 
ciple,  the  principle  of  freedom  in  exchanges.  We 
have  faith  in  that  inner  light  which  Providence  has 
placed  in  the  heart  of  all  men  ;  confiding  to  it  the 
preservation  and  ainelioration  of  our  species  ;  inter- 
est, since  we  must  give  its  name,  so  vigilant,  so 
active,  having  so  much  forecast  when  allowed  its 
free  action.  What  would  be  your  condition,  in- 
liabitants  of  Paris,  if  a  minister,  however  superior 
liis  abilities,  should  undertake  to  substitute,  in  the 
place  of  this  power,  the  combinations  of  his  own 
genius  ?  If  he  should  think  of  subjecting  to  his 
own  supremo  direction  this  prodigious  mechanism, 
taking  all  its  springs  into  his  own  hand,  and  decid- 
ing by  whom,  how,  and  on  what  conditions  each 
article  should  be  produced,  transported,  exchanged, 
and  consumed  ?  Ah  !  although  there  is  much 
suffering  within  your  walls  ;  although  misery,  de- 
spair, and  perhaps  starvation,  may  call  forth  more 
tears  than  your  warmest  charity  can  wipe  away,  it 
is  probable,  it  is  certain,  that  the  arbitrary  inter- 


124  SOPHISMS  ov  I'licvrKCTioN. 

YGiition  of  goveriniient  would  infinitely  multiply 
these  sufferings,  and  would  extend  among  you  the 
evils  which  now  reach  but  a  small  number  of  your 
citizens. 

If  then  we  have  such  faith  in  this  principle  as 
applied  to  our  private  concerns,  why  should  we  not 
extend  it  to  international  transactions,  which  are 
assuredly  less  numerous,  less  delicate,  and  less  com- 
plicated ?  And  if  it  be  not  necessary  for  the  pre- 
fect of  Paris  to  regulate  our  industrial  pursuits,  to 
weigh  our  profits  and  our  losses,  to  occupy  himself 
with  the  quantity  of  our  cash,  and  to  equalize  the 
conditions  of  our  labor  in  internal  commerce,  on 
what  principle  can  it  be  necessary  that  the  custom- 
house, going  beyond  its  fiscal  mission,  should  pre- 
tend to  exercise  a  protective  power  over  our 
external  commerce  ? 


XIX. 

NATIONAL    INDEPENDENCE, 


Among  the  arguments  advanced  in  favor  of  a 
restrictive  system,  we  must  not  forget  that  which 
is  drawn  from  the  plea  of  7iational  independence. 

"  What  will  we  do,"  it  is  asked,  "  in  case  of  war, 
if  we  are  at  the  mercy  of  England  for  our  iron  and 
coal  ?" 


■       NATIONAL    INDEPENDENCE.  125 

The  Euiçlisli  monopolists,  on  their  side,  do  not 
fail  to  exclaim  :  "  What  will  become  of  Great 
Britain  in  case  of  war,  if  she  depends  upon  France 
for  provisions  ?" 

One  thing  appears  to  be  quite  lost  sight  of,  and 
this  is,  that  the  dependence  which  results  from  com- 
mercial transactions,  is  a  reciprocal  dependence. 
We  can  only  be  dependent  upon  foreign  supplies, 
in  so  far  as  foreign  nations  are  dependent  upon  us. 
This  is  the  essence  of  society.  The  breaking  off  of 
natural  relations  places  a  nation,  not  in  an  inde- 
pendent position,  but  in  a  state  of  isolation. 

And  remark  that  tlie  reason  given  for  this  isola- 
tion, is  that  it  is  a  necessary  provision  for  war, 
while  the  act  is  itself  a  commencement  of  war.  It 
renders  war  easier,  less  burdensome,  and  conse- 
quently less  unpopular.  If  nations  were  to  one 
anotlier  permanent  outlets  for  mutual  produce  ;  if 
their  respective  relations  were  such  that  they  could 
not  be  broken  without  inflicting  the  double  suffer- 
ing of  privation  and  of  over-supply,  there  could 
then  no  longer  be  any  need  of  these  powerful  fleets 
which  ruin,  and  these  great  armies  which  crush 
them  ;  the  peace  of  the  world  could  no  more  be 
compromised  by  the  whim  of  a  Thiers  or  a  Paliner- 
ston,  and  wars  would  cease,  from  want  of  resources, 
motives,  pretexts,  and  popular  sympathy. 

I  know  that  I  shall  be  reproached  (for  it  is  the 
fashion  of  the  daj^)   for  placing  interest,  vile  and 


126  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

prosaic  interest,  at  the  foundation  of  tlie  fraternity 
of  nations.  It  would  be  preferred  that  this  should 
be  based  upon  charity,  upon  love  ;  that  there  should 
be  in  it  so  sue  self-denial,  and  that  clashing  a  little 
with  the  material  welfare  of  men,  it  should  bear  the 
merit  of  a  generous  sacrifice. 

When  will  we  have  done  with  such  puerile 
declamations  ?  We  contemn,  we  revile  interest^  that 
is  to  say,  the  good  and  the  useful  (for  if  all  men  are 
interested  in  an  object,  how  can  this  object  be  other 
than  good  in  itself  ?)  as  though  this  interest  were 
not  the  necessary,  eternal,  and  indesti'uctible  mover, 
to  the  guidance  of  which  Providence  has  confided 
human  perfectibility  !  One  would  suppose  that  the 
utterers  of  such  sentiments  must  be  models  of  dis- 
interestedness ;  but  does  the  public  not  begin  to 
perceive  with  disgust,  that  this  affected  language 
is  the  stain  of  those  pages  for  which  it  oftenest 
pays  the  highest  price  ? 

What  !  because  comfort  and  peace  are  correla- 
tive, because  it  has  pleased  (iod  to  establish  so 
beautiful  a  harmony  in  the  moral  world,  you  would 
blame  me  when  I  admire  and  adore  his  decrees, 
and  for  accepting  with  gratitude  his  laws,  w^hicli 
make  justice  a  requisite  for  liappiness  !  You  will 
consent  to  have  peace  only  when  it  clashes  with 
your  welfare,  and  liberty  is  irksome  if  it  imposes 
no  sacrifices  !  What  then  prevents  you,  if  self- 
denial  has  so  many  charms,  from  exercising  it  as 


NATIONAL    INDEPENDENCE.  127 

much  as  you  desire  in  your  private  actions  ? 
Society  will  be  benefited  by  your  so  doing,  for  some 
one  must  profit  by  your  sacrifices.  But  it  is  the 
lieight  of  absurdity  to  wish  to  impose  such  a  prin- 
ciple upon  mankind  generally  ;  for  the  self-aenial 
of  all  is  the  sacrifice  of  all.  This  is  evil  systema- 
tized into  theory. 

But,  thanks  be  to  Heaven  !  these  declamations 
may  be  written  and  read,  and  the  world  continues 
nevertheless  to  obey  its  great  mover,  its  great  cause 
of  action,  which,  spite  of  all  denials,  is  interest. 

It  is  singular  enough,  too,  to  hear  sentiments  of 
such  sublime  self-abnegation  quoted  in  support 
even  of  Spoliation  ;  and  yet  to  this  tends  all  this 
pompous  show  of  disinterestedness  !  These  men, 
so  stinsitively  delicate,  that  they  are  determined  not 
to  enjoy  even  peace,  if  it  must  be  propped  by  the 
vile  interest  of  men,  do  not  hesitate  to  pick  the 
pockets  of  other  men,  and  above  all  of  poor  men. 
For  what  tariff  protects  the  poor  ?  Gentlemen,  we 
pray  you,  dis[)ose  as  you  i)leasc  of  what  belongs  to 
yourselves,  but  let  us  entreat  you  to  allow  us  to  use, 
or  to  exchange,  according  to  our  own  fancy,  the 
fruit  of  our  own  lal)or,  the  sweat  of  oar  own  brows. 
Declaim  as  you  will  about  self-sacrifice  ;  that  is  all 
pretty  enougb  ;  but  we  beg  ot  you,  do  not  at  the 
same  time  foroet  to  be  honest. 


128  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

XX. 

HUMAN    LABOR NATIONAL    LABOR. 

Destruction  of  inachinery — proliibition  of  for- 
eign goods.  These  are  two  acts  proceeding  from 
the  same  doctrine. 

We  do  meet  witli  men  who,  wliile  they  rejoice 
over  the  revelation  of  any  great  invention,  favor 
nevertheless  the  protective  policy  ;  Init  such  men 
are  very  inconsistent. 

What  is  the  objection  they  adduce  against  free 
trade  ?  That  it  causes  us  to  seek  from  foreign  and 
more  easy  production,  what  would  otherwise  be 
the  result  of  home  production.  In  a  word,  that  it 
injures  domestic  industry. 

On  the  same  principle,  can  it  not  be  objected 
to  machinery,  that  it  accomplishes  through  natural 
airents  what  would  otherwise  be  the  result  of 
manual  labor,  and  that  it  is  thus  injurious  to  human 
labor  ? 

The  foreign  laborer,  enjoying  greater  facilities  of 
production  than  tlie  French  laborer,  is,  wdth  regard 
to  tlie  latter,  a  veritable  economical  machine,  which 
crushes  him  by  competition.  Thus,  a  piece  of 
machinery  capable  of  executing  any  work  at  a  less 
price  than  could  be  done  by  any  given  number  of 
hands,  is,  as  regards  these  hands,  m  the  position  of 


HUMAN    LABOR NATIONAL    LABOR.  129 

a  foreign  competitor^  who  paralyzes  them  by  his 
rivalry. 

If  then  it  be  judicious  to  protect  home  labor 
against  the  competition  of  foreign  labor,  it  cannot 
be  less  so  to  protect  hutnan  labor  against  inechaiii- 
cal  lahor. 

Wlioever  adheres  to  the  protective  system  onght 
not,  if  his  brain  be  possessed  of  any  logical  powers, 
to  stop  at  the  prohibition  of  foreign  produce,  but 
should  extend  this  prohibition  to  the  produce  of 
the  loom  and  of  the  plough. 

I  approve  therefore  of  the  logic  of  those  who, 
while  they  cry  out  against  the  intindation  of  for- 
eign merchandise,  have  the  courage  to  declaim  equal- 
ly against  the  excessive  production  resulting  from 
the  inventive  power  of  mind. 

Of  this  number  is  Mr.  do  Saint  Chamans.  "  One 
of  the  strongest  arguments  (says  he)  which  can  bo 
adduced  against  free  trade,  and  the  too  extensive 
employment  of  machines,  is,  that  many  workmen 
are  deprived  of  work,  either  l)y  foreign  competition, 
which  depresses  manufactures,  or  by  inachinery, 
which  takes  the  place  of  men  in  workshops." 

Mr.  de  St.  Chamans  saw  clearly  the  analogy,  or 
rather  the  identity  which  exists  between  iniportat'ion 
and  macJiinery,  and  was,  therefore,  in  favor  of  pro- 
scribing both.  There  is  some  pleasure  in  having 
to  do  with  intrepid  arguers,  who,  even  in  error, 
thus  carry  through  a  chain  of  reasoning. 


130  SOPHISMS    f)F    PROTECTION. 

But  let  ns  look  at  the  difficulty  into  which  tliey 
are  here  led. 

If  it  be  true,  à  pTiori,  that  the  domain  of  inven- 
tion^ and  that  of  labor,  can  be  extended  only  to  the 
injury  of  one  another,  it  would  follow  that  the  few- 
est workmen  M'ould  be  employed  in  countries  (Lan- 
cashire, for  instance)  where  there  is  the  most 
Tnachinery.  And  if  it  be,  on  the  contrary,  proved, 
that  machinery  and  manual  labor  coexist  to  a 
greater  extent  among  rich  nations  than  among 
savages,  it  must  necessarily  follow,  that  these  two 
powers  do  not  interfere  with  one  another. 

I  cannot  understand  how  a  thinkiriir  beinc;  can 
rest  satisfied  with  the  following  dilemma  : 

Either  the  inventions  of  man  do  not  injure  labor  ; 
and  this,  from  general  facts,  would  appear  to  be 
the  case,  for  there  exists  more  of  both  among  the 
English  and  the  French,  than  among  the  Sioux  and 
the  Cherokees.  If  such  be  the  fact,  I  have  gone 
upon  a  wrong  track,  although  unconscious  at  what 
point.  I  have  wandered  from  my  road,  and  I  would 
commit  high  treason  against  humanity  were  I  to 
introduce  such  an  error  into  the  legislation  of  my 
country. 

Or  else  the  results  of  the  inventions  of  mind  limit 
manual  labor,  as  would  appear  to  be  proved  from 
limited  facts  ;  for  every  day  we  see  some  machine 
rendering  unnecessary  the  labor  of  twenty,  or  per- 
haps a  hundred  workmen.     If  this  be  the  case,  I 


HUMAN  LABOR — NATIONAL  LABOR.       131 

am  forced  to  acknowledge,  as  a  fact,  tlic  existence 
of  a  flagrant,  eternal,  and  incnrable  antagonism 
between  the  intellectual  and  the  physical  power  of 
man  ;  between  his  improvement  and  his  welfare. 
I  cannot  avoid  feeling  that  the  Creator  should  have 
bestowed  upon  man  either  reason  or  bodily 
strength  ;  moral  force  or  brutal  force  ;  and  that  it 
lias  been  a  bitter  mockery  to  confer  upon  him 
faculties  which  must  inevitably  counteract  and  de- 
stroy one  another. 

This  is  an  important  difficulty,  and  how  is  it  put 
aside  ?     By  this  singular  apothegm  : 

"  In  political  economy  there  are  no  ahsoltite 
2)ri7icij)ies.''' 

There  are  no  principles  !  Why,  what  does  this 
mean,  but  that  there  are  no  facts  ?  Principles  are 
only  formulas,  wliicli  recapitulate  a  whole  class  of 
well-proved  facts. 

Machinery  and  Importation  must  certainly  have 
effects.  These  effects  must  be  either  good  or  bad. 
Here  there  may  be  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
which  is  the  correct  conclusion,  but  whichever  is 
adopted,  it  must  be  capable  of  being  submitted  to 
the  formula  of  one  or  other  of  these  principles,  viz., 
Machinery  is  a  good,  or.  Machinery  is  an  evil. 
Importations  are  beneficial,  or.  Importations  are 
injurious.  But  to  say  there  are  no  principles  is  cer- 
tainly the  last  degree  of  debasement  to  which  the 
human  mind  can  lower  itself,  and  I  confess  that  I 


132  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

blush  for  1113'  country,  when  I  hear  so  monstrous 
an  absurdity  uttered  before,  and  approved  by,  the 
French  Chambers,  tlic  élite  of  the  nation,  who  thus 
justify  tliemselves  for  imposing  upon  the  country 
laws,  of  the  inerits  or  demerits  of  whicii  they  are 
perfectly  ignorant. 

But,  it  may  be  said  to  me,  finish,  then,  by  de- 
stroying the  Sophism.  Prove  to  us  that  machines 
are  not  injurious  to  human  lahoi\  nor  importations 
to  national  lahor. 

In  a  work  of  this  nature,  such  demonstrations 
cannot  be  very  complete.  My  aim  is  rather  to  point 
out  than  to  explain  difficulties,  and  to  excite  reflec- 
tion rather  than  to  satisfy  it.  The  mind  never 
attains  to  a  firm  conviction  which  is  not  wrought 
out  by  its  own  labor.  I  will,  however,  make  an 
effort  to  put  it  upon  the  right  track. 

The  adversaries  of  importations  and  of  machinery 
are  misled  by  allowing  themselves  to  form  too  hasty 
a  judgment  from  immediate  and  transitory  effects, 
instead  of  following  these  up  to  their  general  and 
final  consequences. 

The  immediate  effect  of  an  ingenious  piece  of 
machinery,  is,  that  it  renders  superfluous,  in  the 
production  of  any  given  result,  a  certain  quantity 
of  manual  labor.  But  its  action  does  not  stop  here. 
This  result  being  obtained  at  less  labor,  is  given  to 
the  public  at  a  less  price.  The  amount  thus  saved 
tu  the  buyers,  enables  them  to  procure  other  com- 


11L'M.\J^    LA]i()Ii— NATIONAL    LAIiOIi.  133 

forts,  and  thus  to  encourage  general  labor,  precisely 
in  proportion  to  the  saving  they  have  made  upon 
the  one  article  which  the  machine  has  given  to 
them  at  an  easier  price.  Thus  the  standard  of 
labor  is  not  lowered,  though  that  of  comfort  is 
raised. 

Let  me  endeavor  to  render  this  double  fact  more 
striking  by  an  example. 

I  suppose  that  ten  million  of  hats,  at  fifteen  francs 
each,  are  yearly  consumed  in  France.  This  would 
give  to  those  employed  in  this  manufacture  one 
hundred  and  fifty  millions.  A  machine  is  invented 
which  enables  the  manufacturer  to  furnish  hats  at 
ten  francs.  The  sum  given  to  the  maintenance  of 
this  branch  of  industry  is  thus  reduced  (if  we  sup- 
pose the  consumption  not  to  be  increased)  to  one 
liundred  millions.  But  the  other  fifty  millions  are 
■not,  therefore,  withdrawn  from  the  maintenance  of 
human  hihor.  The  buyers  of  hats  are,  from  the 
surplus  vsavcd  upon  the  price  of  that  article,  enabled 
to  satisfy  other  wants,  and  thus,  in  the  vsamo  propor 
tion,  to  encourage  general  industry.  Jolni  l)uys  a 
pair  of  shoes  ;  James,  a  book  ;  Jerome,  an  article 
of  furniture,  etc.  Human  labor,  as  a  whole,  still 
receives  the  encouragement  of  the  whole  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  millions,  while  the  consumers,  with 
the  same  supply  of  hats  as  before,  receive  also  the 
increased  number  of  comforts  accruing  from  the 
fifty  millions,  which   the  use  of  the  machine  has 


134  SOPHISMS    OF    I'liOTKCTlON. 

been  the  means  of  sav'ing  to  tliem.  Tliese  comforts 
are  the  net  gain  which  France  has  received  from  the 
invention.  It  is  a  gratuitous  gift,  a  tribute  exacted 
from  nature  by  tlie  genius  of  man.  We  grant  tliat, 
during  this  process,  a  certain  sum  of  lat)or  will 
have  been  di.Hplaced^  forced  to  change  its  direction  ; 
but  we  cannot  allow  that  it  lias  been  destroyed  or 
even  dimmished. 

The  case  is  the  same  with  regard  to  importations. 
1  will  resume  my  hypothesis. 

France,  according  to  our  supposition,  manufact- 
ured ten  millions  of  hats  at  fifteen  francs  each. 
Let  us  now  suppose  that  a  foreign  producer  brings 
them  into  our  market  at  ten  francs.  I  maintain  that 
national  labor  is  thus  in  no  wise  diminished.  It  will 
be  obliged  to  ])roduce  the  ecjuivalent  of  the  hundred 
millions  which  go  to  pay  for  tlie  ten  millions  of 
liats  at  ten  francs,  and  then  there  remains  to  each 
buyer  five  francs,  saved  on  the  purchase  of  his  hat, 
or,  in  total,  fifty  millions,  which  serve  for  the  acqui- 
sition of  other  comforts,  and  the  encouragement  of 
other  labor. 

The  mass  of  labor  remains,  tlien,  what  it  was,  and 
the  additional  comforts  accruing  from  the  fifty 
millions  saved  in  the  purchase  of  hats,  are  the  net 
profit  of  importation  or  free  trade. 

It  is  no  argument  to  try  and  alarm  lis  by  a  picture 
of  the  sufferings  which,  in  this  hypothesis,  would 
result  from  the  displacement  or  change  of  labor. 


RAW    MATEIilAL.  '  135 

For,  if  prohibition  had  never  existed,  labor 
would  have  classed  itself  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  of  trade,  and  no  displacement  would  have 
taken  place. 

If  prohibition  has  led  to  an  artificial  and  unpro- 
ductive classification  of  labor,  then  it  is  prohibition, 
and  not  free  trade,  which  is  responsible  for  the 
inevitable  displacement  which  must  result  in  the 
transition  from  evil  to  good. 

It  is  a  rather  singular  argument  to  maintain  that, 
because  an  abuse  wdiich  has  been  permitted  a  tem- 
porary existence,  cannot  be  corrected  without 
wounding  the  interests  of  those  wdio  have  profited 
by  it,  it  ought,  therefore,  to  claim  perpetual  dura- 
tion. 


XXI. 

RAW    MATERIAL. 

It  is  said  that  no  commerce  is  so  advantageous  as 
that  in  which  manufactured  articles  are  exchanged 
for  raw  material  ;  because  the  latter  furnishes  ali- 
ment for  national  labor. 

And  it  is  hence  concluded  : 

That  the  best  regulation  of  duties  would  be  to 
give  the  greatest  possible  facilities  to  the  importa- 
tion of  raw  material,  and  at  the  same  time  to  check 
that  of  the  finished  article. 


136  soi'nisMS  OF  vkotkction'. 

Tliere  is,  in  political  economy,  no  more  o;enerallj 
accredited  Sophism  than  this.  It  serves  for  argu- 
ment not  only  to  the  protectionists,  but  also  to  the 
pretended  free-trade  school  ;  and  it  is  in  the  latter 
capacity  that  its  most  mischievous  tendencies  are 
called  into  action.  For  a  good  cause  suffers  much 
less  in  being  attacked,  than  in  being  badly  de- 
fended. 

Commercial  liberty  must  probably  pass  through 
the  same  ordeal  as  liberty  in  every  other  form.  It 
can  only  dictate  laws,  after  having  first  taken  thor- 
ough possession  of  men's  minds.  If,  then,  it  be 
true  that  a  reform,  to  be  firmly  estabhshed,  must 
be  generally  understood,  it  follows  that  nothing  can 
so  much  retard  it  as  the  misleading  of  public  opin- 
ion. And  what  more  calculated  to  mislead  opinion 
than  writings,  which,  while  they  proclaim  free 
trade,  support  the  doctrines  of  monopoly  ? 

It  is  some  years  since  three  great  cities  of  France, 
viz.,  Lyons,  Bordeaux,  and  Havre,  combined  in 
opposition  to  the  restrictive  system.  France,  all 
Europe,  looked  anxiously  and  suspiciously  at  this 
apparent  declaration  in  favor  of  free  trade.  Alas  ! 
it  was  still  the  banner  of  monopoly  which  they  fol- 
lowed !  a  monopoly,  only  a  little  more  sordid,  a 
little  more  absurd  than  that  of  which  they  seemed 
to  desire  the  destruction  !  Thanks  to  the  Sophism 
which  I  would  now  endeavor  to  deprive  of  its  dis- 
guise, the  petitioners  only  reproduced,  with  an  addi- 


RAW    MATERIAL.  137 

tional  incongruity,  tlic  old  doctrine  of  protection  to 
national  luhor.  What  is,  in  fact,  the  prohibitive 
system  ?  "We  will  let  Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq  answer 
for  us. 

"  Labor  constitutes  the  riches  of  a  nation, 
because  it  creates  supplies  for  the  gratification  of 
our  necessities  ;  and  universal  comfort  consists  in 
the  abundance  of  these  supplies."  Here  m'o  have 
the  principle. 

"  But  this  abundance  ought  to  be  the  result  of 
national  labor.  If  it  were  the  result  of  foreign  labor, 
national  labor  must  receive  an  inevitable  check." 
Here  lies  the  error.     (See  the  preceding  Sophism.) 

"  What,  then,  ought  to  be  the  course  of  an  agri- 
cultural and  manufacturing  country  ?  It  ought  to 
reserve  its  market  for  the  produce  of  its  own  soil 
and  its  own  industry."     Here  is  the  object. 

"  In  order  to  effect  this,  it  ought,  by  restrictive, 
and,  if  necessary,  by  prohibitive  duties,  to  prevent 
the  influx  of  jiroduce  from  foreign  soils  and  foreign 
industry."     Here  is  the  means. 

Let  ns  now  compare  this  system  with  that  of  the 
petition  from  Bordeaux. 

This  divided  articles  of  merchandise  into  three 
classes.  "  The  first  class  includes  articles  of  food 
and  raw  material  untouched  hy  human  lahor.  A 
judicious  system  of  political  economy  would  re- 
quire that  this  class  should  he  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion.'*'' Here  we  have  the  principle  of  no  labor,  no 
protection. 


138  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

"  The  second  class  is  composed  of  articles  which 
have  received  some  preparation  for  manufacture. 
This  preparation  would  render  reasonable  the  impo- 
sition of  sojne  duties.  '  '  Here  we  find  the  commence- 
ment of  protection,  because,  at  the  same  time,  like- 
wise commences  the  demand  for  national  labor. 

"  The  third  class  comprehends  finished  articles, 
which  can,  under  no  circumstances,  furnish  material 
for  national  labor.  We  consider  this  as  the  most 
fit  for  taxation."  Here  we  have  at  once  the  maxi- 
mum of  labor,  and,  consequently,  of  production. 

The  petitioners  then,  as  we  here  see,  proclaimed 
foreign  labor  as  injurious  to  national  labor.  This 
is  the  er7'or  of  the  prohibitive  system. 

They  desired  the  French  market  to  be  reserved 
for  French  labor.  This  is  the  object  of  the  prohibi- 
tive system. 

They  demanded  that  foreign  labor  should  be 
subjected  to  restrictions  and  taxes.  These  are  the" 
means  of  the  prohibitive  system. 

What  difference,  then,  can  we  possibly  discover 
to  exist  between  the  Bordalese  petitioners  and  the 
Corypheus  of  restriction  ?  One,  alone  ;  and  that  is 
simply  the  greater  or  less  extension  which  is  given 
to  the  signification  of  the  word  labor. 

Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq,  taking  it  in  its  widest  sense, 
is,  therefore,  in  favor  ol  prot€cti7ig  everyûmig. 

"  Labor,"  he  says,  "  constitutes  the  whole  wealth 
of  a  nation.     Protection  should  be  for  the  agricult- 


RAW    MATK"KIAL.  139 

oral  interest,  and  tlie  whole  agricultural  interest  ; 
for  the  manufacturing  interest,  and  the  whole  manu- 
facturing interest  ;  and  this  principle  I  will  contin- 
ually endeavor  to  impress  upon  this  Chamber." 

The  petitioners  consider  no  labor  but  that  of  the 
manufacturers,  and  accordingly,  it  is  that,  and  that 
alone,  which  they  would  wish  to  admit  to  the  favors 
of  protection. 

"  Raw  material  being  entirely  untouched  by 
human  labor,  our  system  should  exempt  it  from 
taxes.  Manufactured  articles  furnishing  no  mate- 
rial for  national  labor,  we  consider  as  the  most  fit 
for  taxation." 

There  is  no  question  here  as  to  the  propriety  of 
protecting  national  labor.  Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq 
and  the  Bordalese  agree  entirely  upon  this  point. 
We  have,  in  our  preceding  chapters,  already  shown 
how  entirely  we  differ  from  both  of  them. 

The  question  to  be  determined  is,  whether  it  is 
Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq,  or  the  Bordalese,  who  give  the 
word  labor  its  proper  acceptation.  And  we  must 
confess  that  Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq  is  here  decidedly  in 
the  right.  The  following  dialogue  might  be  sup- 
posed between  them  : 

Mr.  de  Saint  Cricq. — You  agree  that  national 
labor  ought  to  be  protected.  You  agree  that  no 
foreign  labor  can  be  introduced  into  our  market, 
without  destroying  an  equal  quantity  of  our  national 
labor.     But  you  contend  that  there  are  numerous 


140  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

articles  of  mercliandisc  possessing  value,  for  they 
are  sold,  and  which  are  nev^ertheless  untouched  hy 
huitian  lahor.  Among  these  joii  name  corn,  flonr, 
meat,  cattle,  bacon,  salt,  iron,  copper,  lead,  coal, 
wool,  skins,  seeds,  etc. 

If  you  can  prove  to  me  that  the  value  of  these 
things  is  not  dependent  upon  labor,  I  will  agree 
that  it  is  useless  to  protect  them. 

But  if  I  can  prove  to  you  that  there  is  as  much 
labor  put  upon  a  hundred  francs'  worth  of  wool,  as 
upon  a  hundred  francs' worth,  of  cloth,  you  ought 
to  acknowledge  that  protection  is  the  right  as  much 
of  the  one  as  of  the  other. 

1  ask  you  then  why  this  bag  of  wool  is  worth  a 
hundred  francs  ?  Is  it  not  l)eeause  this  is  its  price 
of  production  ?  And  what  is  the  price  of  production, 
but  the  sum  which  has  been  distributed  in  wages 
for  labor,  payment  of  skill,  and  interest  on  money, 
among  the  various  laborers  and  capitalists,  who 
have  assisted  in  the  production  of  the  article  ? 

The  Petitioners. — It  is  true  that  with  regard  to 
wool  you  may  be  right  ;  but  a  l)ag  of  corn,  a  bar  of 
iron,  a  hundred  weight  of  coal,  are  these  the  prod- 
uce of  labor  ?     Is  it  not  nature  which  creates  them  ? 

Mr.  de  St.  Cricq. — Without  doubt,  nature  creates 
these  substances,  but  it  is  labor  which  gives  them 
their  value.  I  have  myself,  in  saying  that  labor 
creates  material  ol)jects,  used  a  false  expression, 
which  has  led  me  into  many  further  errors.     No 


EAW    MATEKIAL.  141 

man  can  create.  No  man  can  bring  anything  from 
nothing  ;  and  if  'production  is  used  as  a  synonym 
for  creation,  then  indeed  our  hibor  must  all  be  use- 
less. 

The  agriculturist  does  not  pretend  that  he  has 
created  the  corn  ;  but  he  has  given  it  its  value. 
He  has  by  his  own  labor,  and  by  that  of  his  ser- 
vants, his  laborers,  and  his  reapers,  ti'ansformed  into 
corn  substances  which  were  entirely  dissimilar  from 
it.  What  more  is  effected  by  the  miller  who  con- 
verts it  into  flour,  or  by  the  baker  who  makes  it 
into  bread  ? 

In  order  that  a  man  may  be  dressed  in  cloth, 
numerous  operations  are  first  necessary.  Before 
the  intervention  of  any  human  labor,  the  real  -pri- 
mary  materials  of  this  article  are  air,  water,  heat, 
gas,  light,  and  the  various  salts  which  enter  into  its 
composition.  These  are  indeed  untouched  hy 
human  lahor^  for  they  liave  no  value,  and  I  have 
never  dreamed  of  their  needing  protection.  But  a 
first  labor  converts  these  substances  into  forage  ;  a 
second  into  wool  ;  a  third  into  thread  ;  a  fourth 
into  cloth  ;  and  a  fifth  into  garments.  Who  can 
pretend  to  say,  tliat  all  these  contributions  to  the 
work,  from  the  first  furrow  of  the  plough,  to  the 
List  stitch  of  the  needle,  are  not  lahor  f 

And  because,  for  the  sake  of  speed  and  greater 
jierfection  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  final  object, 
these  various  branches  of  labor  are  divided  amono: 


142  SOI'HISMS    OF    PROTECTION, 

as  many  classes  of  workmen,  you,  by  an  arbitrary 
distinction,  determine  that  tlie  order  in  which  the 
various  branches  of  labor  follow  each  other  shall 
reo'ulate  their  importance,  so  that  while  the  first  is 
not  allowed  to  merit  the  name  of  labor,  the  last  shall 
receiv^e  all  the  favors  of  protection. 

TJie  Petitioners. — Yes,  we  begin  to  understand 
that  neither  wool  nor  corn  are  entirely  independent 
of  human  labor  /  but  certainly  the  agriculturist  has 
not,  like  the  manufacturer,  had  everything  to  do 
by  his  own  labor,  and  that  of  his  workmen  ;  nature 
has  assisted  him  ;  and  if  there  is  some  labor,  at  least 
all  is  not  labor,  in  the  production  of  corn. 

Mr.  de  St.  Cricq. — But  it  is  the  labor  alone  which 
gives  it  vahie.  I  grant  that  nature  has  assisted  in 
the  production  of  grain.  I  will  even  grant  that  it 
is  exclusively  her  work  ;  but  I  must  confess  at  least 
that  I  have  constrained  her  to  it  by  my  labor.  And 
remark,  moreover,  that  when  I  sell  my  corn,  it  is 
not  the  v)ork  of  nature  which  I  make  you  pay  for, 
but  my  own. 

You  will  perceive,  also,  by  following  up  your 
manner  of  arguing,  that  neither  will  manufactured 
articles  be  the  production  of  labor.  Does  not  the 
manufacturer  also  call  upon  nature  to  assist  him  ? 
Does  he  not  by  the  assistance  of  steam-machinery 
force  into  his  service  the  weight  of  the  atmosphere, 
r,>  I,  by  the  use  of  the  plough,  take  advantage  of 
its  humidity  ?     Is  it  the    cloth-manufacturer  who 


KAW    MATERIAL.  143 

lias  created  the  laws  of  gravitation,  transmission  of 
forces  and  of  affinities  ? 

The  Petitioners.  —  Well,  well,  we  will  give  up 
wool,  but  assuredly  coal  is  the  work,  the  exclusive 
work,  of  nature.  This,  at  least,  is  independent  of 
all  human  hibor. 

Mr.  de  St.  Cricq.  —  Yes,  nature  certainly  has  made 
coal  ;  but  lahor  has  Tnade  its  vahie.  Where  was  the 
'value  of  coal  during  the  millions  of  years  when  it  lay 
unknown  and  buried  a  hundred  feet  below  the  sur- 
face of  the  earth  ?  It  was  necessary  to  seek  it. 
Here  was  labor.  It  was  necessary  to  transport  it  to 
a  market.  Again  this  was  labor.  The  price  which 
you  pay  for  coal  in  the  market  is  the  remuneration 
given  to  these  labors  of  digging  and  transportation.* 

We  see  that,  so  far,  all  the  advantage  is  on  the 
side  of  Mr.  de  St.  Cricq,  and  that  th*^  'value  of  un- 
manufactured as  of  manufactured  articles,  represents 
always  the  expense,  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  the 
lahor  of  production  ;  that  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive of  an  article  bearing  a  value,  independent  of 

*  I  do  not,  for  many  reasons,  make  explicit  mention  of  such  portion  of 
the  remuneration  as  belongs  to  the  coi-.tractor,  capitalist,  etc.  Firstly  : 
because,  if  the  subject  be  closely  looked  into,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is 
always  either  the  reimbursing  in  advance,  or  the  payment  of  anterior  labor. 
Secondly  :  because,  under  the  general  labor,  I  include  not  only  the  salary 
of  the  workmen,  but  the  legitimate  payment  of  all  co-operation  in  the 
work  of  production.  Thirdly  :  finally,  and  above  all,  because  the  produc- 
tion of  the  manufactured  articles  is,  like  that  of  the  raw  material,  bur- 
dened with  interests  and  remunerations,  entirely  independent  of  matvual 
labor  ;  and  that  the  objection,  in  itself,  might  be  equally  applied  to  the 
finest  manufacture  and  to  the  roughest  agricultural  process. 


144  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

hmnan  labor;  tliat  the  distinction  made  by  tlie 
petitioners  is  futile  in  tlieory,  and,  as  tlie  basis  of 
an  unequal  division  of  favors,  would  be  iniquitous 
in  practice  ;  for  it  would  thence  result  that  the 
one  third  of  the  French  occupied  in  manufactures, 
would  receive  all  the  benefits  of  monopoly,  because 
they  produce  hy  labor',  while  the  two  other  thirds, 
formed  by  the  agricultural  population,  would  be  left 
to  struggle  against  competition,  under  pretence  that 
tlicy  produce  without  labor. 

It  will,  I  know,  be  insisted  that  it  is  advanta- 
geous to  a  nation  to  import  the  raw  material, 
whether  or  not  it  be  the  result  of  labor  ;  and  to 
export  manufactured  articles.  This  is  a  very  gen- 
erally received  opinion. 

"  In  proportion,"  says  the  ])etition  of  Bordeaux, 
"  as  raw  material  is  abundant,  manufactures  will 
increase  and  flourish." 

"  The  abundance  of  raw  material,"  it  elsewhere 
says,  "  gives  an  unlimited  scope  to  labor  in  those 
countries  where  it  prevails." 

"  Raw  material,"  says  the  petition  from  Havre, 
^'  being  the  element  of  labor,  should  be  regulated 
on  a  different  system,  and  ought  to  be  admitted 
immediately  and  at  the  lowest  rate.  '  ' 

The  same  petition  asks,  that  the  protection  of 
manufactured  articles  should  be  reduced,  not  imme- 
diately., but  at  some  indeterminate  time,  not  to  the 
lowest  rate  of  entrance,  but  to  twenty  per  cent. 


KAW    MATERIAL.  145 

"  Among  other  articles,"  says  tlie  petition  of 
Lyons,  "  of  which  the  low  price  and  the  abundance 
are  necessary,  the  manufacturers  name  all  raw 
material.  '  ' 

All  this  is  based  upon  error. 

All  value  is,  we  have  seen,  the  representative  of 
labor.  Now  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  manufact- 
uring labor  increases  tenfold,  a  hundredfold,  the 
value  of  raw  material,  thus  dispensing  ten,  a  hun- 
dredfold increased  profits  throughout  the  nation  ; 
and  from  this  fact  is  deduced  the  following  argu- 
ment :  The  production  of  a  hundred  weight  of  iron 
is  the  gain  of  only  fifteen  francs  to  the  various 
workers  therein  engaged.  This  hundred  weight  of 
iron,  converted  into  watcii-spnngs,  is  increased  in 
vahie  by  this  process,  ten  tliousand  francs.  Who 
can  protend  tliat  the  nation  is  not  more  interested 
in  securing  the  ten  thousand  francs,  tlian  the  fif- 
teen francs'  worth  of  hihor  ? 

In  this  i-easoni ng  it  is  forgotten,  tliat  international 
exchanges  are,  no  more  than  individual  exchanges, 
effected  through  weight  and  measure.  The  ex- 
change is  not  between  a  hundred  weight  of  unman- 
ufactured iron,  and  a  hundred  weight  of  watch- 
springs,  nor  between  a  pound  of  wool  just  shorn, 
and  a  pound  of  wool  just  manufactured  into  cash- 
mere, but  between  a  fixed  value  m  one  of  these 
articles,  and  a  fixed  equal  value  m  another.  To 
exchange  e(]ual   value  with  c(pial    value,  is  to  ex- 


146  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

change  equal  labor  with  equal  labor,  and  it  is  there- 
fore not  true  that  the  nation  which  sells  its  hundred 
francs'  worth  of  cloth  or  of  watch-sprinc:;s  gains 
more  than  the  one  which  furnishes  its  hundred 
francs'  worth  of  wool  or  of  iron. 

In  a  country  where  no  law  can  be  passed,  no 
contribution  imposed  without  tlie  consent  of  the 
governed,  the  public  can  be  robbed,  only  after  it 
has  first  been  cheated.  Our  own  iguorance  is  the 
primary,  the  raw  material  of  every  act  of  extortion 
to  which  we  are  subjected,  and  it  may  safely  be 
predicted  of  every  Sojihism,  that  it  is  the  forerunner 
of  an  act  of  Spoliation.  Good  Public,  whenever 
therefore  you  detect  a  Sophism  in  a  petition,  let  me 
advise  you,  put  your  hand  upon  your  pocket,  for 
be  assured,  it  is  that  which  is  particularly  the  point 
of  attack. 

Let  us  then  examine  what  is  the  secret  design 
which  the  sliip-owners  of  Bordeaux  and  Havre,  and 
the  manufacturers  of  Lyons,  would  smuggle  in 
upon  us  by  this  distinction  between  agricultural 
produce  and  manufactured  produce. 

"  It  is,  "  say  the  petitioners  of  Bordeaux,  "  prin- 
cipally in  this  first  class  (that  which  comprehends 
raw  material,  untouched  by  human  labor)  that  we 
find  the  principal  encouragement  of  our  merchant 
'oessels A  wise  system  of  political  econ- 
omy would  re(]uire  that  this  class  should  not  be 
taxed The  second  class  (articles  which 


k 


RAW    MATElilAL.  147 

have  received  some  preparation)  may  be  considered 
as  taxable.  The  third  (articles  which  have  received 
from  labor  all  the  linish  ot  which  they  are  capable) 
we  regard  as  mod  'proper  for  taxation.''' 

''  Considering,"  say  the  petitioners  ot  Havre, 
"  that  it  is  indispensable  to  ï\^y\w<:iQ  ttnmediatety  and 
to  the  Lowest  rate,  the  raw  aiatenal,  in  order  that 
manufacturing  industry  may  give  employmeiit  to 
our  merchant  vessels,  which  turnish  its  hrst  and  in- 
dispensable means  ot  labor  " 

The  manufacturers  could  not  allow  themselves  to 
be  behindhand  m  civilities  toward  the  ship  owners, 
and  accordingly  the  petition  ot  Lyons  demands  the 
free  introduction  ot  raw  material,  '*  m  order  to 
prove,"  it  remarks,  "that  the  interests  of  manu- 
factiinng  towns  are  not  opposed  to  those  of  mari- 
time cities.  " 

This  may  be  true  enougii  ;  but  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  both,  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  petition- 
ers, are  terribly  adverse  to  the  interest  of  agricult- 
ure and  of  consumers. 

Tins,  then,  gentlemen,  is  the  aim  of  all  your 
subtle  distinctions  !  You  wish  the  law  to  oppose 
the  maritime  transportation  of  manufactured  arti- 
cles, in  order  that  the  much  more  expensive  trans- 
portation of  the  raw  material  should,  by  its  larger 
bulk,  in  its  rough,  dirty,  and  unimproved  condi- 
tion, furnisii  a  more  extensive  business  to  your 
mercliant  vessels.  And  tliis  is  what  you  call  a  wise 
system  of  j)oUtical  economy  ! 


148  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Why  not  also  petition  for  a  law  reqniring  that 
fir-trees,  imported  Irom  Russia,  should  not  be  admit- 
ted without  tlieir  branches,  bark,  and  roots  ;  that 
Mexican  gold  should  be  imported  in  the  state  of  ore, 
and  Buenos  Ayres  leathers  only  allowed  an  entrance 
into  our  ports,  while  still  hanging  to  the  dead  bones 
and  putrefying  bodies  to  which  they  belong  ? 

The  stockholders  of  railroads,  if  they  can  obtain 
a  majority  in  the  Chambers,  will  no  doubt  soon 
favor  us  with  a  law  forbidding  the  manufacture,  at 
Cognac,  of  the  brandy  used  in  Paris.  For,  surely, 
they  would  consider  it  a  wise  law,  which  would,  by 
forcing  the  transportation  of  ten  casks  of  wme 
instead  of  one  of  brandy,  thus  furnish  to  Parisian 
industry  an  indispensable  encouiHUjenient  to  its 
labor,  and  at  the  same  time  give  employment  to 
railroad  locomotives  ! 

Until  when  will  we  persist  in  shutting  our  eyes 
upon  the  following  simple  truth  ? 

Labor  and  industry,  m  their  general  object,  have 
but  one  legitimate  aim,  and  this  is  the  public  good. 
To  create  useless  industrial  pursuits,  to  favor  super- 
fluous transportation,  to  maintain  a  superfluous 
labor,  not  for  the  good  of  the  public,  but  at  the 
expense  of  the  public,  is  to  act  upon  a  petitio 
frincipii.  For  it  is  the  result  of  labor,  and  not 
labor  itself,  which  is  a  desirable  object.  All  labor, 
without  a  result,  is  clear  loss.  To  pay  sailors  for 
transporting  rough  dirt  and  filthy  refuse  across  the 


METAPHORS.  140 

ocean  is  about  as  reasonable  as  it  would  l)c  to  cn- 
fijao;e  their  services,  and  pay  them  for  peltinj^  the 
water  with  pebbles.  Thus  we  arrive  at  the  conclu- 
sion t\i?it political  Sojjkisms,  notwithstanding  their 
iniinitc  variety,  have  one  point  in  common,  which 
is  the  consttmt  confounding  of  the  'means  with  the 
end,  and  the  development  of  the  former  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  latter. 


XXII. 


METAPHORS. 


A  Sophism  will  sometimes  expand  and  extend 
itself  through  the  whole  tissue  of  a  long  and  tedious 
theory,  Oftener  it  contrasts  into  a  principle,  and 
hides  itself  in  one  word. 

"  Heaven  preserve  us,"  said  Paul  Louis,  "■  from 
the  Devil  and  from  the  spirit  of  metaphor  !"  And, 
truly,  it  might  be  difficult  to  determine  which  of 
the  two  sheds  the  most  noxious  influence  over  our 
planet.  The  Devil,  you  will  say,  because  it  is  he 
who  implants  in  our  hearts  the  spirit  of  spoliation. 
Ay  ;  but  he  leaves  the  capacity  for  checking 
abuses,  by  the  resistance  of  those  who  suffer.  It  'S 
the  genius  of  Sophism  which  paralyzes  this  resist- 
ance. The  sword  which  the  spirit  of  evil  places 
in  the  hands  of  the  aggressor  would  fall  powerless, 


150  SOPHISMS    OF    I'liOTKCTIOX. 

if  the  shield  of  liiui  wlio  is  attacked  were  not  sliat- 
tered  in  his  grasp  by  the  spirit  of  Sophism.  Male- 
branche  has,  with  great  truth,  inscribed  upon  the 
frontispiece  of  his  book  this  sentence  :  Error  Ls  the 
cause  of  h  avian  misery. 

Let  ns  notice  what  passes  in  the  world.  Ambi- 
tious hypocrites  may  take  a  sinister  interest  in 
spreading,  for  instance,  the  germ  of  national  enmi- 
ties. The  noxious  seed  may,  in  its  developments, 
lead  to  a  general  conflagration,  check  civilization, 
spill  torrents  of  l)lood,  and  draw  upon  the  country 
that  most  terrible  of  scourges,  iiivasion.  Such 
hateful  sentiments  cannot  fail  to  degrade,  in  the 
opinion  of  other  nations,  the  people  among  whom 
they  prevad,  and  force  those  who  retain  some  love 
of  justice  to  blush  for  their  country.  These  are 
fearful  evils,  and  it  would  be  enough  that  the  pub- 
lic should  have  a  clear  view  of  them,  to  induce 
them  to  secure  themselves  against  the  plotting  of  ' 
those  who  would  expose  them  to  such  heavy 
chances.  How,  then,  are  they  kept  in  darkness  ? 
How,  but  by  metaphors  ?  The  meaning  of  three 
or  four  words  is  forced,  changed,  and  depraved  — 
and  all  is  said. 

Such  is  the  use  made,  for  instance,  of  the  word 
invasion. 

A  master  of  French  iron -works  exclaims  :  Save 
ns  from  the  invasion  of  English  iron.  An  English 
landholder  cries  :   Let  us   oppose  the  invasion  of 


METAPFIORS.  151 

French  corn.  And  forthwith  all  their  efforts  are 
l)ent  upon  raising  barriers  between  these  two  nations. 
Thence  follows  isolation  ;  isolation  leads  to  hatred  ; 
hatred  to  war  ;  and  war  io  invasion.  What  inat 
ters  it  ?  say  the  two  Sophists  ;  is  it  not  better  to 
expose  ourselves  to  a  possible  invasion.,  than  to 
meet  a  certain  one  ?  And  the  people  believe  ;  and 
the  barriers  are  kept  up. 

And  yet  what  analogy  can  exist  between  an 
exchange  and  an  invasion  ?  What  resemblance 
can  possibly  be  discovered  betw^een  a  man-of-war, 
vomiting  iire,  death,  and  desolation  over  our  cities — 
and  a  merchant  vessel,  which  comes  to  offer  in  free 
and  peaceable  exchange,  produce  for  produce  ? 

Much  in  the  same  way  has  the  word  inundation 
been  abused.  This  word  is  generally  taken  in 
a  bad  sense  ;  and  it  is  certainly  of  frequent  occur- 
rence for  inundations  to  ruin  lields  and  sweep  away 
harvests.  But  if,  as  is  the  case  in  the  inundations 
of  the  !Nile,  they  were  to  leave  upon  the  soil  a 
superior  value  to  that  which  they  carried  away,  we 
ought,  like  the  Egyptians,  to  bless  and  deify  them. 
Would  it  not  be  well,  before  declaiming  against  the 
inundations  of  foreign  produce,  and  checking  them 
with  expensive  and  embarrassing  obstacles,  to  cer- 
tify ourselves  whether  these  inundations  are  of  the 
number  which  desolate,  or  of  those  which  fertilize 
a  country  ?  What  would  we  think  of  Mehemet 
Ali,   if,  instead  of  constructing,  at  great  expense. 


152  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

dams  aci  js  the  Nile  to  increase  the  extent  of  its 
inundations,  he  were  to  scatter  his  piasters  in  at- 
tempts to  deepen  its  bed,  that  he  mi^^ht  rescue 
Egypt  from  the  defilement  of  the  foreign  mud 
wliich  is  swept  down  upon  it  from  the  Mountains 
of  the  Moon  ?  Exactly  such  a  degree  of  wisdom 
do  we  exhibit,  when  at  the  expense  of  millions,  we 
strive  to  preserve  our  country  ....  From  what  ? 
From  the  blessings  with  which  i>ature  has  gifted 
other  climates. 

Among  tlie  metaphors  which  sometimes  conceal, 
eacli  in  itself,  a  whole  theory  of  evil,  there  is  none 
more  common  than  that  which  is  presented  under 
the  words  tribute  and  tributary. 

These  words  are  so  frequently  employed  as  ^^wo- 
nyxn^  oi  purchase  a.nà  j)urchaser,  that  the  terms  are 
now  used  almost  indifferently.  And  yet  there  is  as 
distinct  a  difference  between  a  tribute  and  a  pur- 
chase, as  between  a  robbery  and  an  exchange.  It 
appears  to  me  that  it  would  be  quite  as  correct  to 
say.  Cartouche  has  broken  open  my  strong  box, 
and  has  bought  a  thousand  crowns  from  me,  r.s  to 
state,  as  I  have  heard  done  to  our  honorable  dep- 
uties. We  have  paid  in  tribute  to  Germany  the 
value  of  a  thousand  horses  which  she  has  sold 
us. 

The  action  of  Cartouche  was  not  a  purchase, 
because  he  did  not  put,  and  with  my  consent,  into 
my  strong  box  an  equivalent   value  to  that  which 


METAIMIÔRS.  153 

he  took  out.  Neither  could  the  purchase-money 
paid  to  Germany  be  tribute^  because  it  was  not  on 
our  paVt  a  forced  payment,  gratuitously  received  on 
l^ers,  but  a  willing  compensation  from  us  for  a 
thousand  horses,  which  we  ourselves  judged  to  be 
worth  5()IVH)(>  francs. 

Is  it  necessary  then  seriously  to  criticise  such 
abuses  of  language  ?  Yes,  for  very  seriously  are 
they  put  forth  in  our  books  and  journals.  Nor  can 
we  flatter  ourselves  that  they  are  the  careless  ex- 
pressions of  uneducated  writers,  ignorant  even  of 
the  terms  of  their  own  language.  They  are  cur- 
rent with  a  vast  majority,  and  among  the  most  dis- 
tinguished of  our  writers.  We  flnd  them  m  the 
mouths  of  our  d'Argouts,  Dupins,  VilJcles  ;  of 
peers,  deputies,  and  ministers  ;  men  whose  woi'ds 
become  laws,  and  whose  influence  might  establish 
the  most  revolting  Sophisms,  as  the  basis  of  tlie 
administration  of  their  country. 

A  celebrated  modern  Philosopher  has  added  to 
the  categories  of  Aristotle  the  Sophism  which  con- 
sists in  expressing  in  one  word  a  i)etitu)  principii. 
He  cites  several  examples,  and  might  iiave  added 
the  word  trihutanj  to  his  nomenclature.  For 
instance,  the  question  is  to  determine  whether 
foreign  purchases  are  useful  or  hurtful.  1  ou 
answer,  hurtful.  And  why?  Because  they  ren 
lier  us  tributaru  to  foreigners.  Truly  here  is  a 
word  which  begs  the  (juestion  at  once. 


15-4  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

How  lias  this  delusive  figure  of  speech  intro- 
duced itself  into  the  rhetoric  of  monopolists  ? 

Money  is  withdrawn  from  the  country  to  satisfy 
the  rapacity  of  a  victorious  enemy  :  money  is  also 
withdrawn  from  the  country  to  pay  for  merchan- 
dise. The  analogy  is  established  between  the  two 
cases,  calculating  only  the  point  of  resemblance  and 
abstracting  that  by  which  they  differ. 

And  yet  it  is  certainly  true,  that  the  non-reim- 
bursement in  the  first  case,  and  the  reimbursement 
freely  agreed  upon  in  the  second,  establishes 
between  them  so  decided  a  difference,  as  to  render 
it  impossible  to  class  them  under  the  same  cate- 
gory. To  be  obliged,  with  a  dagger  at  your  throat, 
to  give  a  hundred  francs,  or  to  give  them  willingly 
in  order  to  obtain  a  desired  object — truly  these  arc 
cases  in  which  we  can  perceive  little  similarity.  It 
might  just  as  correctly  be  said,  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  indifference  whether  we  eat  our  bread,  or  have 
It  thrown  into  the  water,  because  in  both  cases  it  is 
destroyed.  We  here  draw  a  false  conclusion,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  word  tribiite,  by  a  vicious  manner 
of  reasoning,  which  supposes  an  entire  similitude 
between  two  cases,  their  resemblance  only  being 
noticed  and  their  difference  suppressed. 


_, 


CONCLDSION.  155 


CONCLUSION. 

All  tlie  Sopliisms  wliich  i  liave  so  far  com- 
bated, relate  to  the  restrictive  policy  ;  and  some 
even  on  this  subject,  and  those  of  the  most  remark- 
able, I  iiave,  in  pity  to  the  reader,  passed  over  : 
acquired  riyhts  /  unsuitableness  /  exkaustion  of 
money,  etc.,  etc. 

But  social  economy  is  not  confined  within  this 
narrow  circle.  Fourierism,  Saint  Simonism,  Corn- 
monism,  agrarianism,  anti-rentism,  m)"sticism,  sen- 
timentalism,  false  philanthropy,  affected  aspirations 
for  a  chimerical  equality  and  fraternity  ;  questions 
relative  to  luxury,  wages,  machinery  ;  to  the  pre- 
tended tyranny  of  capital  ;  to  colonies,  outlets, 
population  ;  to  emigration,  association,  imposts, 
and  loans,  have  encumbered  the  field  of  Science 
with  a  crowd  of  parasitical  arguments — Sophisms, 
whose  rank  growth  calls  for  the  spade  and  the 
weeding- hoe. 

1  am  perfectly  sensible  of  the  defect  of  my  plan, 
or  rather  absence  of  plan.  By  attacking  as  I  do, 
one  by  one,  so  many  incoherent  Sophisms,  which 
clash,  and  then  again  often  mingle  with  each  otlier, 
1  am  conscious  that  1  condemn  myself  to  a  disor- 
derly and  capricious  struggle,  and  am  exposed  to 
perpetual  repetitions. 


156  SOPHISMS    OF    TROTECTION. 

1  should  certainly  much  prefer  to  state  aimply 
liow  things  rar,  without  trouI)lin<^  myself  to  contem- 
plate the  thousand  aspects  under  ^vhich  ignorance 
supjjoses  them  to  be  .  .  .  To  lay  down  at  once  the 
laws  under  wliich  society  prospers  or  perishes, 
would  be  mrtuallij  to  destroy  at  once  ail  Sophisms. 
When  Laplace  described  what,  up  to  his  time,  was 
known  of  the  movements  of  celestial  bodies,  he  dis- 
sipated, without  even  naming  them,  all  the  astro- 
logical reveries  of  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Hin- 
doos, much  more  certainly  than  lie  could  have  done 
by  attempting  to  refute  them  d:rectly,  through  in- 
numerable volumes.  Truth  is  one,  and  the  work 
which  expounds  it  is  an  imposing  and  durable  edi- 
fice. Error  is  multiple,  and  of  ephemeral  nature. 
The  work  which  combats  it,  cannot  bear  in  itself  a 
principle  of  greatness  or  of  durability. 

But  if  power  and  perhaps  opportunity  have  been 
wanting  to  me,  to  enable  me  to  proceed  in  the 
manner  of  Laplace  and  of  Say,  I  still  cannot  but 
believe  that  the  mode  adopted  by  me  has  also  its 
modest  usefulness.  It  appears  to  me  likewise  to 
be  well  suited  to  the  wants  of  the  age,  and  to  tlie 
broken  moments  which  it  is  now  the  habit  to  snatch 
for  study. 

A  treatise  has  without  doubt  an  incontestable 
superiority.  But  it  re(piires  to  be  read,  meditated, 
and  understood.     It  addresses  itself  to  the  select 


CONCLUSION.  157 

few.  Its  mission  is  first  to  lix  attention,  and  then 
to  enlarge  the  circle  of  ac(|nired  knowledge. 

A  work  which  undertakes  the  refutation  of  vul- 
gar prejudices,  cannot  have  so  higli  an  aim.  It 
aspires  only  to  clear  the  way  for  the  steps  of  Truth  ; 
to  prepare  the  minds  of  men  to  receive  her  ;  to  rec- 
tify public  opinion,  and  to  snatch  from  unworthy 
hands  dangerous  weapons  which  they  misuse. 

It  is,  above  all,  in  social  economy,  that  this  hand- 
to-hand  struggle,  this  ever-reviving  combat  wùth 
popular  errors,  has  a  true  practical  utility. 

Sciences  might  be  arranged  in  two  categories. 
Those  of  the  first  class,  whose  application  belongs 
only  to  particular  professions,  can  be  understood  only 
by  the  learned  ;  but  the  most  ignorant  may  profit 
by  their  fruits.  We  may  enjoy  the  comforts  of  a 
wat(;h  ;  w.e  may  be  transported  by  locomotives  or 
steamboats,  although  knowing  nothing  of  mechan- 
ism and  astronomy.  We  walk  according  to  the 
laws  of  equilibrium,  while  entirely  ignorant  of 
them. 

But  there  are  sciences  whose  influence  upon  the 
public  is  proportioned  only  to  the  information  of 
that  public  itself,  and  whose  efficacy  consists  not  in 
the  accumulated  knowledge  of  some  few  learned 
heads,  but  in  that  which  has  diffused  itself  into  the 
reason  of  man  in  the  aggregate.  Such  are  morals, 
hygiene,  social  economy,  and  (in  countries  where 


158  SOPHISMS  OF  protection. 

men  belong  to  themselves)  political  economy.  Of 
tlicse  sciences  Bentliam  might  above  all  have  said  : 
"  It  is  better  to  circulate,  than  to  advance  them." 
"What  does  it  profit  us  that  a  great  man,  even  a 
God,  should  promulgate  moral  laws,  if  the  minds 
of  men,  steeped  in  error,  will  constantly  mistake 
vice  for  virtue,  and  virtue  for  vice  ?  What  does  it 
beneiit  us  that  Smith,  Say,  and,  according  to  Mr. 
de  St.  Chamans,  political  economists  oieoery  school, 
should  have  proclaimed  the  superiority,  in  all  com- 
mercial trnnsactions,  of  liberty  above  restraint,  if 
those  who  make  laws,  and  for  whom  laws  are  made, 
are  convinced  of  the  contrary  ? 

These  sciences,  which  have  very  properly  been 
named  social,  are  again  peculiar  in  this,  that  they, 
being  of  common  application,  no  one  will  confess 
himself  ignorant  of  them.  If  tlie  object  be  to 
determine  a  question  in  chemistry  or  geometry, 
nobody  pretends  to  have  an  innate  knowledge  of 
the  science,  or  is  ashamed  to  consult  Mr.  Thénard, 
or  to  seek  information  from  the  pages  of  Legendrc 
or  Bezout.  But  in  the  social  sciences  authorities 
are  rarely  acknowledged.  As  each  individual  daily 
acts  upon  his  own  notions  whether  right  or  wrong, 
of  morals,  hygiene,  and  economy  ;  of  politics, 
whether  reasonable  or  absurd,  each  one  thinks  he 
has  a  right  to  prose,  comment,  decide,  and  dictate 
in  these  matters.  iVre  you  sick  ?  There  is  not  a 
good  old  woman  in  the  country  who  is  not  ready 


CONCLUSION.  159 

to  tell  yoii  the  cause  and  the  remedy  for  your  suf- 
ferings. "  It  is  from  humors  in  the  blood,"  says 
she  ;  "  you  must  be  purged."  But  what  are  these 
humors,  or  are  there  any  humors  at  all  ?  On  this 
subiectshe  troubles  herself  but  little.  This  good 
old  woman  comes  into  my  mind,  whenever  1  hear 
an  attempt  made  to  account  for  all  the  maladies  of 
the  social  body,  by  some  trivial  form  of  words.  It 
is  superabundance  of  produce,  tyranny  of  capital, 
industrial  plethora,  or  other  sucli  nonsense,  of  which, 
it  would  be  fortunate  if  we  could  say  :  Verha 
et  voces p7'œtereaque  nihil,  for  these  are  errors  from 
which  fatal  consequences  follow. 

From  what  precedes,  the  two  following  results 
may  be  deduced  :  1st.  That  the  social  sciences, 
more  than  others,  necessarily  abound  in  Sophisms, 
because  in  their  application,  each  individual  con- 
sults only  his  own  judgment  and  his  own  instincts. 
2d.  That  in  these  sciences  Sophisms  are  especially 
injurious,  because  they  mislead  opinion  on  a  sub- 
ject in  which  opinion  is  power — is  law. 

Two  kinds  of  books  then  are  necessary  in  these 
sciences,  those  which  teach,  and  those  which  circu- 
late ;  those  which  expound  the  truth,  and  those 
which  combat  error. 

I  believe  that  the  inherent  defect  of  this  little 
work,  repetition,  is  what  is  Hkely  to  be  the  cause  of 
its  principal  utility.  Among  the  Sophisms  which 
it  has  discussed,  each  has  undoubtedly  its  own  tor- 


160  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTKCTION. 

mula  and  tendency,  but  all  have  a  common  root  ; 
and  this  is,  ÛXQforgetfulncss  of  the  interests  of  men, 
considei'ed  as  cotisu/ners.  By  showing  that  a  thou- 
sand mistaken  roads  all  lead  to  this  great  generative 
Sophism,  I  may  perliaps  teach  the  public  to  recog- 
nize, to  know,  and  to  mistrust  it,  under  all  circum- 
stances. 

After  all,  I  am  less  at  forcing  convictions,  than 
at  waking  doubts. 

I  have  no  hope  that  the  reader  as  he  lays  down 
my  book  will  exclaim,  J  know.  My  aspirations 
will  be  fully  satisfied,  if  he  can  but  sincerely  say,  1 
doiiht. 

"  1  doubt,  for  I  begin  to  fear  that  there  may  be 
something  illusory  in  the  snpposed  blessings  of 
scarcity."     (Sophism  I.) 

"  I  am  not  so  certain  of  the  beneficial  effect  of 
obstacles."     (Sophism  II.) 

"  Effort  loithout  residt,  no  longer  appears  to  me  so 
desirable  as  result  without  effort.''''     (Sophism  III.) 

"  I  understand  that  the  more  an  article  has  been 
labored  upon,  the  more  is  its  value.  But  in  trade, 
do  two  equal  values  cease  to  be  equal,  because  one 
comes  from  the  plough,  and  the  other  from  the 
workshop?"     (Sophism  XXI.) 

"  1  confess  that  I  begin  to  think  it  singular  that 
mankind  should  be  the  better  of  hindrances  and 
obstacles,  or  should  grow  rich  upon  taxes  ;  and  truly 
I  would  be  relieved  from  some  anxiety,  would  be 


CONCLUSION.  161 

really  happy  to  see  the  proof  of  the  fact,  as  stated 
by  the  author  of  "  the  Sophisms,"  tliat  there  is  no 
incompatibility  between  prosperity  and  justice, 
between  peace  and  liberty,  between  the  extension 
of  labor  and  the  advance  of  intelligence."  (Soph- 
isms XIV  and  XX.) 

"  Without,  then,  giving  up  entirely  to  arguments, 
which  I  am  yet  in  doubt  whether  to  look  upon  as 
fairly  reasoned,  or  as  paradoxical,  I  will  at  least 
seek  enlightenment  from  the  masters  of  the  science.  " 

1  will  now  terminate  this  sketch  by  a  last  and 
important  recapitulation. 

The  world  is  not  sufficiently  conscious  of  the  in- 
fluence exercised  over  it  by  Sophistry. 

When  might  ceases  to  he  rights  and  the  govern- 
ment of  mere  strength  is  dethroned.  Sophistry 
transfers  the  empire  to  cunning  and  suhtilty.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  determine  which  of  the  two 
tyrannies  is  most  injurious  to  mankind. 

Men  have  an  immoderate  love  for  pleasure,  in- 
fluence, consideration,  power  —  in  a  word,  for 
riches  ;  and  they  are,  by  an  almost  unconquerable 
inclination,  pushed  to  procure  these,  at  the  expense 
of  others. 

But  these  others^  who  form  the  public,  have  a  no 
less  strong  inclination  to  keep  what  they  have  ac- 
quired ;  and  this  they  will  do,  if  they  have  the 
strength  and  the  knowledge  to  effect  it. 


162  SOITIISMS    OF    I'FiOTKCTION'. 

Spoliation,  wliicli  plays  so  important  a  pai't  in 
the  affairs  of  this  world,  has  then  two  aji:;cnts  : 
Force  and  Cunning.  She  has  also  two  cliecks  : 
Cotirage  and  Knowledge. 

Force  applied  to  spoliation,  furnishes  the  great 
material  for  the  annals  of  men.  To  retrace  its  his- 
tory would  be  to  present  almost  the  entire  history 
of  every  nation  :  Assyrians,  Babylonians,  Medes, 
Persians,  Greeks,  Romans,  Goths,  Franks,  Pluns, 
Turks,  Arabs,  Tartars,  without  counting  the  more 
recent  expeditions  of  the  English  in  India,  the 
BVench  in  Africa,  the  Russians  in  Asia,  etc.,  etc. 

But  among  civilized  nations  surely  the  producers 
of  riches  are  now  become  sufficiently  numerous 
and  strong  to  defend  themselves. 

Does  this  mean  that  they  are  no  longer  robbed  ? 
They  are  as  much  so  as  ever,  and  moreover  tliey 
rob  one  another. 

The  only  difference  is  that  Spoliation  has  changed 
lier  agent.  She  acts  no  longer  by  Force.,  but  by 
Cunnhig. 

To  rob  the  public,  it  is  necessary  to  deceive  them. 
To  deceive  them,  it  is  necessary  to  persuade  them 
tliat  they  are  robbed  for  their  own  advantage,  and 
to  induce  them  to  accept  in  exchange  for  their 
property,  imaginary  services,  and  often  worse. 
Hence  spring  Sophlftvis  in  all  their  varieties. 
Tlien,  since  Force  is  held  in  check,  Sophisiry  is  no 
longer  only  an  evil  ;  it  is  the  genius  of  evil,  and  re- 


CONCLUSION.  163 

quires  a  check  in  its  turn.  This  clieck  must  be  the 
t)nh'o;htenment  of  the  public,  wliicli  must  be  ren- 
dered more  subtle  than  the  subtle,  as  it  is  already 
stronger  than  the  strong. 

Good  Public  !  I  now  dedicate  to  you  this  first 
essay  ;  though  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  Pref- 
ace is  strangely  transposed,  and  the  Dedication  a 
little  tardy. 


PART   II. 

SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION. 

SECOND  SERIES. 

"The  request  of  Industry  to  the  government  is  as  modest  as  that  of 
Diogenes  to  Alexander  ;  '  Stand  out  of  my  sunshine.'  "'— Bentham. 

I. 
NATURAL  HISTORY  OF  SPOLIATION. 

Why  do  I  give  myself  up  to  that  dry  science, 
political  economy  ? 

The  question  is  a  proper  one.  All  labor  is  so  re- 
pugnant in  its  nature  that  one  has  the  right  to  ask 
of  what  use  it  is. 

Let  us  examine  and  see. 

I  do  not  address  myself  to  those  philosophers 
who,  if  not  in  their  own  names,  at  least  in  the  naiue 
of  humanity,  profess  to  adore  poverty. 

I  speak  to  those  who  hold  wealth  in  esteem — 
and  understand  by  this  word,  not  the  opulence  of 
the  few,  but  the    coinfort,  the  well-being,   the  se- 


166  SOi'IIISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

curitj,  the  independence,  the  instruction,  the  digni- 
ty of  all. 

There  are  only  two  ways  by  wliich  the  means 
essential  to  the  preservation,  the  adornment,  and 
the  perfection  of  life  may  be  obtained — production 
and  spoliation.  Some  persons  may  say:  "Spolia- 
tion is  an  accident,  a  local  and  transient  al)use,  de- 
nounced by  morality,  punished  by  the  law,  and 
unworthy  the  attention  of  political  economy." 

Still,  however  benevolent  or  optimistic  one  may 
be,  ho  is  compelled  to  admit  that  spoliation  is  prac- 
tised on  so  vast  a  scale  in  this  world,  and  is  so  gen- 
erally connected  with  all  great  human  events,  that 
no  social  science,  and,  least  of  all,  political  econo- 
my, can  refuse  to  consider  it. 

I  go  farther.  That  which  prevents  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  social  system  (at  least  in  so  far  as  it  is 
capable  of  perfection  (is  the  constant  effort  of  its 
members  to  live  and  prospérât  tiie  expense  of  each 
other.  So  that,  if  spoliation  did  not  exist,  society 
being  perfect,  the  social  sciences  would  be  with- 
out an  object. 

I  go  still  farther.  When  spoliation  becomes  a 
means  of  subsistence  for  a  body  of  men  united  by 
social  ties,  in  course  of  time  they  make  a  law  which 
sanctions  it,  a  morality  which  glorilies  it. 

It  is  enough  to  name  some  ot  the  best  deiined 
forms  of  spoliation  to  indicate  the  position  it  occu- 
pies in  human  affairs. 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  167 

First  comes  war.  Among  savages  the  conqueror 
kills  the  conquered,  to  obtain  an  uncontested,  if 
not  incontestable,  right  to  game. 

Kext  slavery.  "When  man  learns  that  he  can  make 
the  earth  fruitful  bj'  labor,  he  makes  this  division 
with  his  l)rother  :   You  work,  and  I  eat." 

Then  comes  superstition.  "According  as  you 
give  or  refuse  me  that  which  is  yours,  I  will  open 
to  you  the  gates  of  heaven  or  of  hell." 

Finally,  monopoly  appears.  Its  distinguishing 
characteristic  is  to  allow  the  existence  of  the  grand 
social  law— ■'service  for  service — while  it  brings  the 
element  of  force  into  the  discussion,  and  thus  alters 
the  just  proportion  between  servies  received  and 
service  ren  de  red. 

Spoliation  always  l)ears  within  itself  the  germ  of 
its  own  destruction.  Very  rarely  the  many  des])oil 
the  few.  In  such  a  case  the  latter  soon  become 
so  reduced  that  they  can  no  longer  satisfy  the  cupid- 
ity of  the  former,  and  spoliation  ceases  for  want  of 
sustenance. 

Almost  always  the  few  oppress  the  man}',  and 
in  that  case  spoliation  is  none  the  less  undermined, 
for,  if  it  has  force  as  an  aident,  as  in  war  and  slavery, 
it  IS  natural  that  force  in  the  end  should  be  on  the 
side  of  the  greater  number.  And  if  deception  is  the 
agent,  as  with  superstition  and  monopoly,  it  is  nat- 
ural that  the  many  should  ultimately  become  en- 
hirhtened. 


168  SOPHISMS  OF  protection. 

Another  law  of  Providence  wars  against  spolia- 
tion.    It  is  this  : 

Spoliation  not  only  displaces  w^ealth,  hut  always 
destroys  a  portion. 

War  annihilates  values. 

Slavery  paralyzes  the  faculties. 

Monopoly  transfers  wealth  from  one  pocket  to 
another,  but  it  always  occasions  the  loss  of  a  por- 
tion in  the  transfer. 

This  is  an  admirable  law.  Without  it,  provided 
the  strength  of  oppressors  and  oppressed  were  equal, 
spoliation  would  have  no  end. 

A  moment  comes  when  the  destruction  of  wealth 
is  such  that  the  despoiler  is  poorer  than  he  would 
have  been  if  he  had  remained  honest. 

So  it  is  with  a  people  when  a  war  costs  more  than 
the  booty  is  v/orth  ;  with  a  master  who  pays  more 
for  slave  labor  than  for  free  labor  ;  with  a  priesthood 
which  has  so  stupefied  the  people  and  destroyed  its 
energy  that  nothmg  more  can  be  gotten  out  of  it  ; 
with  a  monopoly  whicli  increases  its  attempts  at 
absorption  as  there  is  less  to  absorb,  just  as  the 
difficulty  of  milking  increases  with  the  emptiness  of 
the  udder. 

Monopoly  is  a  species  of  the  genus  spoliation.  It 
has  many  varieties,  among  them  sinecure,  privilege, 
and  restriction  upon  trade. 

Some  of   the  forms    it   assumes   are   simple   and 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  169 

naïve,  like  feudal  lights.  Under  this  regime  tlie 
masses  are  despoiled,  and  know  it. 

Other  forms  are  more  complicated.  Often  the 
masses  are  plundered,  and  do  not  know  it.  It  may 
even  happen  that  they  believe  that  they  owe  every- 
thing to  spoliation,  not  only  what  is  left  them,  but 
what  is  taken  from  them,  and  what  is  lost  in  the 
operation.  1  also  assert  that,  in  the  course  of  time, 
thanks  to  the  ingenious  machinery  of  habit,  many 
people  become  spoilers  without  knowing  it  or  wish- 
ing it.  Monopolies  of  this  kind  are  begotten  by 
fraud  and  nurtured  by  error.  They  vanish  only 
before  the  light. 

1  have  said  enough  to  indicate  that  political  econ- 
omy has  a  manifest  practical  use.  It  is  the  torch 
which,  unveiling  deceit  and  dissipating  error,  de- 
stroys that  social  disorder  called  spoliation.  Some 
one,  a  woman  I  believe,  has  correctly  defined  it  as 
'*  the  safety-lock  upon  the  property  of  the  people." 

COMMENTARY. 

If  this  little  book  were  destined  to  live  three  or 
four  thousand  years,  to  be  read  and  re-read,  pon- 
dered and  studied,  phrase  by  phrase,  word  by  word, 
and  letter  by  letter,  from  generation  to  generation, 
like  a  new  Koran  ;  if  it  were  to  fill  the  libraries  of 
the  world  with  avalanches  of  annotations,  explana- 
tions, and  paraphrases,  i  might  leave  to  their  fate, 


170  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

in  their  rather  obscure  conciseness,  tlie  thoughts 
which  precede.  But  since  they  need  a  commentary, 
it  seems  wise  to  me  to  furnisli  it  myself. 

The  true  and  equitable  law  of  humanity  is  the 
free  exchange  of  service  for  service.  Spoliation  con- 
sists in  destroying  by  force  or  by  trickery  the  free- 
dom of  exchange,  in  order  to  receive  a  service  with- 
out rendering  one. 

Forcible  spoliation  is  exercised  thus  :  Wait  till  a 
man  has  produced  something  ;  then  take  it  from 
him  by  violence. 

It  is  solemnly  condenmed  by  the  Decalogue  : 
Thou  shall  not  steal. 

AVhen  practised  by  one  individual  on  another,  it 
is  called  robbery,  and  leads  to  the  prison  ;  when 
practised  among  nations,  it  takes  the  name  of  con- 
quest, and  leads  to  glory. 

Why  this  ditierence  {  It  is  worth  while  to  search 
for  the  cause.  It  will  reveal  to  us  an  irresistible 
power,  public  opmion,  which,  like  the  atmosphere, 
envelopes  us  so  completely  that  we  do  not  notice  it. 
Housseau  never  said  a  truer  thing  than  this:  "  A 
great  deal  of  philosophy  is  needed  to  understand  the 
facts  which  are  very  near  to  us." 

The  robber,  for  the  reason  that  he  acts  alone,  has 
public  opinion  against  him.  He  ternties  all  who 
are  about  him.  Yet,  if  he  has  companions,  he 
plumes  himself  betore  them  on  his  exploits,  and 
here  we  may  begin  to  notice   the    power  of    public 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  171 

opinion,  for  tlie  approl)ation  of  his  band  serves  to 
obliterate  all  consciousness  of  his  tnrpitnde,  and 
even  to  make  him  proud  of  it.  The  warrior  lives 
in  a  different  atmosphere.  The  public  opinion 
which  would  rebuke  him  is  among  the  vanquished. 
He  does  not  feel  its  influence.  But  the  opinion  of 
those  by  whom  he  is  surrounded  approves  his  acts 
and  sustains  him.  lie  and  his  comrades  are  vividly 
conscious  of  the  common  interest  which  unites  them. 
The  country  which  has  created  enemies  and  dan- 
gers needs  to  stimulate  tlie  courage  of  its  children. 
To  the  most  daring,  to  those  who  have  enlarged  the 
frontiers,  and  gathered  the  spoils  of  war,  are  given 
lionors,  reputation,  glory.  Poets  sing  their  exploits. 
Fair  women  weave  garlands  for  them.  And  such 
IS  the  power  ot  public  opinion  that  it  separates  the 
idea  of  injustice  from  spoliation,  and  even  rids 
the  despoiler  ot  the  consciousness  of  his  wrong- 
doing. 

The  public  opinion  which  reacts  against  military 
spoliation  (as  it  exists  among  the  conquered  and 
not  among  the  conquering  people)  has  very  little  in- 
fluence. But  it  is  not  entirely  powerless.  It  gains 
in  strength  as  nations  come  together  and  understand 
one  another  better.  Thus,  it  can  be  seen  that  the 
study  of  languages  and  the  free  communication  of 
peoples  tend  to  bring  about  the  supremacy  of  an 
opinion  opposed  to  this  sort  of  spoliation. 

Unfortunately,  it  often  happens  that  the  nations 


172  SOPHISMS  OF  protection. 

adjacent  to  a  phiiKleniiw  people  are  themselves 
spoilers  when  opportunity  oflers,  and  hence  are  im- 
bued with  the  same  prejudices. 

Then  there  is  only  one  remedy — time.  It  is  ne- 
cessary that  nations  learn  by  harsh  experience  the 
enormous  disadvantage  of  despoiling  each  other. 

You  say  tliere  is  another  restraint — moral  influ- 
ences. But  moral  influences  have  tor  their  object 
the  increase  ot  virtuous  actions,  liow  can  they  re- 
strain these  acts  ot  spoliation  when  these  very  acts 
are  raised  by  public  opinion  to  the  level  ot  the  high- 
est virtues  ?  Is  there  a  more  potent  moral  influence 
than  religion  'i  Has  there  ever  been  a  religion  more 
tavorable  to  peace  or  more  universally  received  than 
Christianity  ?  And  yet  wliat  has  been  witnessed 
during  eighteen  centuries?  iMen  have  gone  out  to 
battle,  not  merely  in  spite  ot  religion,  but  in  the  very 
name  of  religion. 

A  conquering  nation  docs  not  always  wage  ofien- 
sive  war.  Its  soldiers  are  obliged  to  protect  the 
hearthstones,  the  property,  the  families,  the  in- 
dependence, and  liberty  of  their  native  land.  At 
such  a  time  war  assumes  a  character  of  sanctity  and 
grandeur.  The  flag,  blessed  l)y  the  ministers  of  the 
God  of  Peace,  represents  all  that  is  sacred  on  earth  ; 
the  people  rally  to  it  as  the  living  image  of  their 
country  and  their  honor  ;  the  warhke  virtues  are 
exalted  above  all  others.  When  the  danger  is  over, 
the  opinion  remains,  and  by  a  natural  reaction  of 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  173 

that  R])irit  ot  vengeance  which  confounds  itself  with 
patriotism,  they  k)ve  to  liearthe  cherished  flair  from 
capital  to  capital.  It  seems  that  nature  has  thus 
prepared  tlie  punishment  of  the  aggressor. 

It  IS  the  fear  of  this  punishment,  and  not  the 
progress  ot  philosophy,  which  keeps  arms  in  the 
arsenals,  for  it  cannot  be  denied  that  those  people 
who  are  most  advanced  m  civilization  make  war,  and 
i30ther  themselves  very  little  with  justice  when  they 
have  no  reprisals  to  fear.  Witness  the  Himalayas, 
the  Atlas,  and  the  Caucasus. 

If  religion  has  been  impotent,  if  philosophy  is 
powerless,  how  is  war  to  cease  ? 

JPolitical  economy  demonstrates  that  even  if  the 
victors  alone  are  considered,  war  is  always  begun  in 
the  interest  of  the  few,  and  at  the  expense  of  the 
many.  All  that  is  needed,  then,  is  that  the  masses 
should  clearly  perceive  this  trutli.  The  weight  of 
pul)lic  opinion,  which  is  yet  divided,  would  then  be 
cast  entirely  on  the  side  of  peace. 

Forcible  s})oliation  also  takes  another  form.  With- 
out waiting  for  a  man  to  produce  something  in 
order  to  rob  him,  they  take  possession  of  the  man 
himself,  deprive  him  of  liis  freedom,  and  force  him 
to  work.  They  do  not  say  to  liim,  "  If  you  will  do 
this  for  me,  1  will  do  that  for  you,"  but  they  say  to 
him,  "  You  take  all  the  troubles,  we  all  tlie  enjoy- 
ments. "      This  is  slavery. 

Now  it  is  important  to  inquire  whether  it  is  not  in 


174  SOlMirSMS    OK    TROTKCTION. 

tlie  nature  of  uncontrolled  power  always  to  abuse 
itself. 

For  my  part  I  have  no  douht  of  it,  and  should  as 
soon  expect  to  see  the  power  that  could  arrest  a 
stone  in  falling  proceed  from  the  stone  itself,  as  to 
trust  force  within  any  defined  limits. 

I  should  like  to  be  shown  a  country  where  slavery 
has  been  abolished  by  the  voluntary  action  of  the 
masters. 

Slavery  furnishes  a  second  striking  example  of 
the  impotence  of  philosophical  and  religious  senti- 
ments in  a  conflict  with  the  energetic  activity  of 
self-interest. 

This  may  seem  sad  to  some  modern  schools  which 
seek  the  reformation  of  society  in  self-denial.  Let 
them  begin  by  reforming  the  nature  of  man. 

In  the  Antilles  the  masters,  from  father  to  son, 
have,  since  slavery  was  established,  professed  the 
Christian  religion.  Many  times  a  day  they  repeat 
these  words  :  "All  men  are  brothers.  Love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself  ;  in  this  are  the  law  and  tho 
prophets  fultilled.  "  Yet  they  hold  slaves,  and  noth- 
ing seems  to  them  more  legitimate  or  natural.  Do 
modern  reformers  hope  that  their  moral  creed  will 
ever  be  as  universally  accepted,  as  popular,  as 
authoritative,  or  as  often  on  all  lips  as  the  Gospel  ? 
If  that  has  not  passed  from  the  lips  to  the  heart,  over 
or  through  the  great  barrier  of  self-interest,  how  can 
they  hope  that  their  system  will  work  this  miracle  ? 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  175 

"Well,  then,  is  slavery  invulneral^le  ?  No  ;  self- 
interest,  which  founded  it,  will  one  day  destroy  it, 
provided  the  special  interests  wliicii  have  created  it 
do  not  stifle  those  general  interests  which  tend  to 
overthrow  it. 

Another  truth  demonstrated  by  political  economy 
is,  that  free  labor  is  progressive,  and  slave  labor 
stationary.  Hence  the  triumph  of  the  first  over  the 
second  is  inevitable.  What  has  become  of  the  cul- 
tivation of  indigo  by  the  blacks  ? 

Free  labor,  applied  to  the  production  of  sugar,  is 
constantly  causing  a  reduction  in  the  price.  Slave 
property  is  becoming  proportionately  less  valuable 
to  the  master.  Slavery  will  st)on  die  out  in  America 
unless  the  price  of  sugar  is  artificially  raised  by  legis- 
lation. Accordingly,  we  see  to-day  the  masters,  their 
creditors  and  representatives,  making  vigorous  ef- 
forts to  maintain  these  laws,  which  are  the  pillars  of 
the  edifice. 

Unfortunately  they  still  have  the  sympathy  of 
people  among  whom  slavery  has  disappeared,  from 
which  circumstance  the  sovereignty  of  public  opin- 
ion may  again  be  observed.  If  public  opinion  is 
sovereign  in  the  domain  of  force,  it  is  much  more 
so  in  the  domain  of  fraud.  Fraud  is  its  proper 
spliere.  Stratagem  is  the  alnise  of  intelligence, 
imposture  on  the  part  of  the  despoiler  implies  cre- 
dulity on  the  part  of  the  despoiled,  and  the  natural 
antidote  of  credulity  is  truth.     It  follows  that   to 


176  SOPHISMS    OF    I'KOTECTION. 

enlighten  the  mind  is  to  deprive  this  species  of  s])0- 
hation  ot  its  support. 

1  will  brietly  pass  in  review  a  few  ot  the  different 
kinds  of  spoliation  wliich  are  practised  on  an 
exceedingly  large  scale.  The  first  which  ])resents  it- 
self is  spoliation  through  the  avenue  ot  su})erstition. 
It  what  does  it  consist  'i  In  the  exchange  ot  tood, 
clothing,  luxury,  distinction,  influence,  power — sub- 
stantial services  ior  hctitious  services.  If  1  tell  a 
man  :  "1  will  render  vou  an  immediate  service,"  I 
am  obliged  to  keep  my  word,  or  he  would  soon 
know  what  to  depend  upon,  and  my  trickery  would 
be  unmaslved. 

But  if  I  should  tell 'him,  ''  In  exchange  for  your 
services  1  will  do  you  immense  service,  not  in 
this  world  but  in  another  ;  after  this  life  you  may 
be  eternally  happy  or  miserable,  and  that  happiness 
or  misery  depends  u])on  me  ;  I  am  a  vicar  between 
God  and  man,  and  can  open  to  you  the  gates  of 
heaven  or  of  liell  ;"  if  that  man  believes  me  Jie  is 
at  my  mercy. 

This  method  of  imposture  has  been  very  exten- 
sively practised  since  the  beginning  of  the  world,  and 
it  is  well  known  to  what  omnipotence  the  Egyptian 
priests  attained  by  such  means. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  impostors  proceed.  It  is 
enough  to  ask  one's  self  what  he  would  do  in  their 
place. 

If  1,  entertaining  views  of  this  kind,  had  arrived 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  177 

in  the  midst  of  an  ignorant  population,  and  were  to 
succeed  by  some  extraordinary  act  or  marvel  Ions 
appearance  in  passing  myself  off  as  a  supernatnial 
being,  1  would  claim  to  be  a  messenger  from  God, 
having  an  absolute  control  over  the  future  destinies 
of  men. 

Then  I  would  forbid  all  examination  of  my 
claims.  I  would  go  still  further,  and,  as  reason 
would  be  my  most  dangerous  enemy,  1  would  inter- 
dict the  use  of  reason— at  least  as  applied  to  this 
dangerous  subject.  1  would  taboo,  as  the  savages 
say,  this  question,  and  all  those  connected  Math  it. 
To  agitate  them,  discuss  them,  or  even  think  of 
them,  should  bean  unpardonable  crime. 

Certainly  it  would  l)e  the  acme  of  art  thus  to  put 
the  barrier  of  the  taboo  upon  all  intellectual  avenues 
which  might  lead  to  the  discovery  of  my  imposture. 
What  better  guarantee  of  its  perpetuity  than  to 
make  even  doubt  sacrilege  ? 

However,  1  would  add  accessory  guarantees  to  this 
fundamental  one.  For  instance,  in  order  that  knowl- 
edge might  never  be  disseminated  among  the  masses, 
1  M'ould  appropriate  to  myself  and  my  accom- 
plices the  monopoly  of  the  sciences,  I  would  hide 
them  under  the  veil  of  a  dead  language  and  hiero- 
gly]3hic  writing  ;  and,  in  order  that  no  danger  might 
take  me  unawares,  I  would  be  careful  to  invent 
some  ceremony  which  day  by  day  would  give  me 
access  to  the  ju-ivacy  of  all  consciences. 


178  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION, 

It  would  not  1)0  amiss  for  me  to  supply  some  of 
the  real  wants  of  my  ])eople,  especially  if  by  doing 
so  I  could  add  to  my  inliuence  and  authority.  For 
instance,  men  need  education  and  moral  teaching;, 
and  I  would  he  the  source  of  both.  Thus  I  would 
guide  as  I  pleased  the  minds  and  hearts  of  my 
people.  I  would  join  morality  to  my  authority  by  an 
indissoluble  chain,  and  I  would  proclaim  that  one 
could  not  exist  without  the  other,  so  that  if  any 
audacious  indivddual  attempted  to  meddle  with  a 
tab<x>e(l  (question,  society,  which  cannot  exist  without 
morality,  would  feel  the  very  earth  tremble  under 
its  feet,  and  would  turn  its  wrath  uj^on  the  rash 
innovator. 

When  things  have  come  to  this  pass,  it  is  plain 
that  these  people  are  more  mine  than  if  they  were 
my  slaves.  The  slave  curses  his  chain,  but  my 
people  will  bless  theirs,  and  I  shall  succeed  in 
staniping,  not  on  their  foreheads,  but  in  the  very 
centre  of  their  consciences,  the  seal  of  slavery. 

Pul>lic  opinion  alone  can  overturn  such  a  struct- 
ure of  ini(|uity  ;  but  where  can  it  begin,  if  each 
stone  is  tabooed  ?  It  is  the  work  of  time  and  the 
printing-press. 

God  forI)id  that  I  should  seek  to  disturb  those 
consoling  beliefs  which  link  this  life  of  sorrows  to 
a  life  of  felicity.  But,  that  the  irresistible  longing 
which  attracts  us  toward  religion  has  been  abused, 
no  one,  not  even  the  Head  of  Christianity,  can  deny. 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OK    SPOLIA  I'loN.  179 

Tlierc  is,  it  seems  to  mc,  one  sio-n  by  wliicli  you  can 
know  wlictlicr  the  people  arc  or  are  not  dupes. 
Examine  religion  and  the  priest,  and  sec  whether 
the  priest  is  the  instrument  of  rehgion,  or  rehj2:ion 
the  instrument  of  the  priest. 

If  the  priest  is  the  instrument  of  reUgion,  if  his 
only  thouglit  is  to  disseminate  its  morality  and  its 
beneiits  on  the  earth,  he  will  be  gentle,  tolerant, 
humble,  charitable,  and  full  of  zeal  ;  his  life  will 
rellect  that  of  his  divine  model  ;  he  will  ])reach 
liberty  and  ecpuUity  among  men,  and  peace  and  fra- 
ternity among  nations  ;  he  will  repel  the  allurements 
of  temporal  power,  and  will  not  ally  himself  with 
that  which,  of  all  things  in  this  world,  has  the  most 
need  of  restraint  ;  he  will  be  the  man  of  the  people, 
the  man  of  good  advice  and  tender  consolations,  the 
man  of  public  opinion,  the  man  of  the  Evangelist. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  religion  is  the  instrument 
of  the  priest,  he  will  treat  it  as  one  does  an  instru- 
ment which  is  changed,  bent  and  twisted  in  all  ways 
so  as  to  get  out  of  it  the  greatest  possible  advantage 
for  one's  self.  lie  will  multi])ly  tabooed  questions  ; 
his  morality  ■will  be  as  flexible  as  seasons,  men,  and 
circumstaiices.  He  will  seek  to  impose  on  humanity 
by  gesticulations  and  studied  attitudes  ;  an  hundred 
times  a  day  he  will  niumble  over  words  whose  sense 
has  evaporated  and  which  have  become  empty  con- 
ventionalities, lie  will  traffic  in  holy  things,  but 
just  enough   not    to    shake    faith  in   their   sanctity, 


180  SOl'IIISMS    OK    I'KOTKCTION. 

and  he  will  take  care  that  the  more  mtelliii^ent  the 
people  are,  the  less  open  shall  the  trathc  be.  lie 
will  take  ])art  in  tlie  intrigues  of  the  world,  and  he 
will  always  side  with  the  powerful,  on  the  simple 
condition  that  they  side  with  hiui.  In  a  word,  it 
will  be  easy  to  see  in  all  his  actions  that  he  does 
not  desire  to  advance  religion  by  the  clergy,  but  the 
clergy  by  religion,  and  as  so  many  efforts  indicate 
an  object,  and  as  this  object,  according  to  the 
hypothesis,  can  be  only  power  and  wealth,  the  de- 
cisive proof  that  the  people  are  dupes  is  when  the 
priest  is  rich  and  powerful. 

It  is  very  plain  that  a  true  rehgion  can  be  abused 
as  well  as  a  false  one.  The  higher  its  authority 
the  greater  the  fear  that  it  may  be  severely-  tested. 
But  there  is  much  difference  in  the  results.  Abuse 
always  stirs  up  to  revolt  the  sound,  enlightened, 
intelligent  portion  of  a  people.  This  inevitably 
weakens  faith,  and  the  weakening  of  a  true  religion 
is  far  more  lamentable  than  of  a  false  one.  This 
kind  of  spoliation,  and  popular  enlightenment,  are 
always  in  an  inverse  ratio  to  one  another,  for  it  is 
in  the  nature  of  abuses  to  go  as  far  as  possible. 
Not  that  pure  and  devoted  priests  cannot  be  found 
in  the  midst  of  the  most  ignorant  population,  but 
how  can  the  knave  be  prevented  from  donning  the 
cassock  and  nursing  the  ambitious  hope  of  wearing 
the  mitre  ?  Despoilers  obey  the  Malthusian  law  ; 
they  multiply  with   the   means  of   existence,    and 


NATURAL    HISTOliV    OV    SPdLIATloX.  ISl 

tlie  means  of  existence  of  knaves  is  the  credulity 
of  tlieir  dupes.  Turn  whichever  way  you  please, 
you  always  lind  the  need  of  an  enlightened  pub- 
lic (jpinion.      There  is  no  other  cure-all. 

Another  species  of  spoliation  is  eoininercial  fraud,, 
a  term  which  seems  to  me  too  limited,  because  the 
tradesman  wlio  changes  his  weights  and  measures 
is  not  alone  culpable,  but  also  the  physician  who 
receives  a  fee  for  evil  counsel,  the  lawyer  who 
provokes  litigation,  etc.  In  the  exchange  of  two 
services  one  may  be  of  less  value  than  the  other, 
but  when  the  service  received  is  that  which  has 
been  agreed  upon,  it  is  evident  that  spoliation  of 
that  nature  will  diminish  with  the  increase  of  pub- 
lic intelligence. 

The  next  in  order  is  the  abuse  in  the  puhlic  ser- 
vice— an  immense  field  of  spoliation,  so  immense 
that  we  can  give  it  but  partial  consideration. 

If  God  had  made  man  a  solitary  animal,  every  one 
would  labor  for  himself.  Individual  wealth  would 
be  in  proportion  to  the  services  each  one  rendered 
to  himself.  But  since  tnan  is  a  social  anirnal,  one 
se?'vice  is  exchanged  for  another.  A  proposition 
which  you  can  transpose  if  it  suits  you. 

In  society  there  are  certain  requirements  so  gen- 
eral, so  universal  in  their  nature,  that  provision  has 
been  nuide  for  them  in  the  organizing  of  the  public 
service.  Among  these  is  the  necessity  of  secu- 
rity.    Society    agrees    to    com|">ensate    in    services 


1S2  SOI'IIIS.MS    OF    rUOTKClloX. 

of  a  diiïcroiit  nature  tliosc  wlio  render  it  the  service 
of  guardin<i;  the  piil)lic  safety.  In  this  there  is 
nothin<2;  contrary  to  tlie  principles  of  poHtical 
economy.  Do  this  for  trie^  I  will  do  that  for  yon. 
The  ])rincip]e  of  tlie  transaction  is  the  same, 
altliough  the  process  is  different,  but  the  circum- 
stance has  great  significance. 

In  private  transactions  cacli  individual  remains 
the  judge  both  of  the  service  which  he  renders 
and  of  that  which  he  receives.  He  can  always 
decline  an  exchange,  or  negotiate  elsewhere.  There 
is  no  necessity  of  an  interchange  of  services,  ex- 
cept by  previous  voluntary  agreement.  Such  is 
not  the  case  with  the  State,  especially  before 
the  establishment  of  representative  government. 
Whether  or  not  we  require  its  services,  whether 
they  are  good  or  bad,  we  are  obliged  to  accept  such 
as  are  offered  and  to  pay  the  price. 

It  is  the  tendency  of  all  men  to  magnify  tliei^ 
own  services  and  to  disparage  services  rendei'cd 
them,  and  private  matters  would  be  poorly  reg- 
ulated if  tliere  was  not  some  standard  of  value. 
This  guarantee  we  have  not  (or  we  hardly  have  it) 
in  public  affairs-  But  still  society,  composed  of 
men,  however  strongly  the  contrary  may  be  insin- 
uated, obeys  the  universal  tendency.  The  govern- 
ment  wishes  to  serve  ns  a  great  deal,  much  more 
than  we  desire,  and  forces  us  to  acknowledge  as  a 
real  service  that    which  sometimes  is  widely  differ- 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION  183 

ent,  and  this  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  demandinj^ 
contributions  from  us  ift  return. 

The  State  is  also  subject  to  the  law  of  Malthus. 
It  is  continually  living  beyond  its  means,  it  increases 
in  proportion  to  its  means,  and  draws  its  support 
solely  from  the  substance  of  the  people.  Woe  to 
the  people  who  are  incapable  of  limitino;  the  spliere 
of  action  of  the  State.  Liberty,  private  activity, 
riches,  well  being,  independence,  dignity,  depend 
upon  this. 

There  is  one  circumstance  which  must  be  noticed  : 
Chief  among  the  services  which  we  ask  of  the 
State  IS  security.  That  it  may  guarantee  this  to  us 
It  must  control  a  force  capable  of  overcoining  ^11 
individual  or  collective  domestic  or  foreign  forces 
M'hich  might  endanger  it.  Combined  with  tliat 
fatal  disposition  among  men  to  live  at  the  expense 
of  each  other,  which  we  have  before  noticed,  this 
fact  suggests  a  danger  patent  to  all 

You  will  accordingly  observe  on  what  an  im- 
mense scale  spoliation,  by  the  abuses  and  excesses 
of  tlie  government,  has  been  pnutisod. 

If  one  should  ask  what  service  has  been  rendered 
the  public,  and  what  return  lias  been  made  therefor, 
by  such  governments  as  Assyria,  Babylon,  Egypt, 
Home,  Persia,  Turkey,  China,  Russia,  England, 
Spain,  and  France,  he  would  be  astonished  at  the 
enormous  disparity. 

At  last  representative  government  was  invented. 


184  SOPHISMS  OF  pjîotection. 

and,  ayriori.,  one  niie^ht  have  bglicved  tliut  the  dis- 
order would  have  ceased  as  if  by  enchantment. 

The  princii)lo  of  these  i^overnments  is  this  : 

"  The  people  themselves,  by  their  representatives, 
shall  decide  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  pub- 
lie  service  and  the  remuneration  for  those  services." 

The  tendency  to  appropriate  the  property  of 
another,  and  the  desire  to  defend  one's  own,  are 
thus  brought  in  contact.  One  might  suppose  that 
the  latter  would  overcome  the  former.  Assuredly 
I  am  convinced  that  the  latter  will  finally  prevail, 
but  we  must  concede  that  thus  far  it  has  not. 

Why  ?  For  a  very  simple  reason.  Governments 
have  had  too  much  sagacity  ;    people  too  little. 

Governments  are  skilful.  They  act  methodi- 
cally, consecutively,  on  a  well- concerted  plan, 
which  is  constantly  improved  by  tradition  and  ex- 
perience. They  study  men  and  their  passions.  If 
they  perceive,  for  instance,  that  they  have  warlike 
instincts,  they  incite  and  inflame  this  fatal  propen- 
sity. They  surround  the  nation  with  dangers 
through  the  conduct  of  diplomats,  and  then  natu- 
rally ask  for  soldiers,  sailors,  arsenals,  and  fortifica- 
tions. Often  they  have  but  the  trouble  of  accept- 
ing them.  Then  they  have  pensions,  places,  and 
})romotions  to  offer.  All  this  calls  for  money. 
Hence  loans  and  taxes. 

It  the  nation  is  generous,  the  government  pro- 
j^osLS  tc  cure  all  the  ills  of  humanity.     It  promises 


NATL'RAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  185 

to  increase  coninierce,  to  make  ajj^riciilture  ])ros- 
perous,  to  develop  manufactures,  to  encoiiraf]je 
letters  and  arts,  to  banish  misery,  etc.  Al!  that  is 
necessary  is  to  create  otiices  and  to  pay  public  func- 
tionaries. 

In  other  words,  their  tactics  consist  in  presenting 
as  actual  services  things  which  are  but  hindrances  ; 
then  the  nation  pays,  not  for  being  served,  but  for 
being  subservient.  Governments  assuming  gigan- 
tic proporti(jns  end  by  absorbing  haK  of  all  the 
revenues.  The  people  are  astonished  that  while 
marvellous  labor-saving  inventions,  destined  to 
infinitely  multiply  productions,  are  ever  increasing 
in  number,  they  are  obliged  to  toil  on  as  painfully 
as  ever,  and  remain  as  poor  as  before. 

This  happens  because,  while  the  government 
manifests  so  much  ability,  the  people  show  so  little. 
Thus,  when  they  are  called  upon  to  choose  their 
agents,  those  who  are  to  determine  the  èphere  of, 
and  compensation  for,  governmental  action,  whom 
do  tliey  choose  ?  The  agents  of  tlie  government. 
They  intrust  the  executive  power  with  the  deter- 
mination of  the  limit  of  its  activity  and  its  require- 
ments. They  are  like  the  Bourgeois  Gentilhomme^ 
who  referred  the  se4ection  and  number  of  his  suit.'? 
of  clothes  to  his  tailor. 

However,  things  go  from  bad  to  worse,  and  at 
last  the  people  open  their  eyes,  not  to  the  remedy, 
for  there  is  none  as  j^et,  but  to  the  evil. 


186  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Govcrniiifc  is  so  pleasant  a  trade  that  everybody 
desires  to  enga<>:e  in  it.  Tlius  the  advisers  of  the 
]K'ople  do  not  cease  to  say  :  "  AVc  see  your  suffer- 
ings, and  we  weep  over  them.  It  would  be  other- 
wise if  v)c  governed  yon." 

This  period,  which  usually  lasts  for  some  time, 
is  one  of  rebellions  and  insurrections.  When  the 
people  are  conquered,  the  expenses  of  the  war  are 
added  to  their  burdens.  "When  they  conquer,  there 
is  a  change  of  those  who  govern,  and  the  abuses 
remain. 

-  This  lasts  until  the  people  learn  to  know  and 
defend  their  true  interests.  Thus  we  always  come 
back  to  this  :  there  is  no  remedy  but  in  the  progress 
of  public  intelligence. 

Certain  nations  seem  remarkably  inclined  to  be- 
come the  prey  of  governmental  spoliation.  They 
are  those  where  men,  not  considering  their  own 
dignity  and  energy,  would  believe  themselves  lost, 
if  they  were  not  governed  and  administered  upon 
in  all  things.  Without  liaving  travelled  much,  I 
have  seen  countries  where  they  thiidc  agriculttire 
can  make  no  progress  unless  the  State  keeps  up 
experimental  farms  ;  that  there  will  presently  be  no 
horses  if  the  State  has  no  stables  ;  and  that  fathers 
will  not  have  their  children  educated,  or  will  teach 
them  only  immoralities,  if  the  State  does  not  decide 
what  it  is  proper  to  learn.  In  such  a  country  révolu 
tiens  may  rapidly  succeed  one  another,  and  one  set 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  1SÎ 

of  rulers  after  another  be  overturned.  But  the  ^ov  ■ 
erned  are  none  tlic  less  governed  at  the  caprice  and 
mercy  of  their  rulers,  until  the  people  see  that  it  i? 
better  to  leave  the  greatest  possible  number  of  ser- 
vices in  the  category  of  those  Mdiich  tlie  partie? 
interested  exchange  after  a  fair  discussicîn  of  tli^ 
price. 

We  have  seen  that  society  is  ati  exchange  of  ser^ 
vices,  and  shouhl  be  but  an  exchange  of  good  and 
honest  ones.  But  we  have  also  proven  that  merx 
have  a  great  interest  in  exaggerating  the  relative 
value  of  the  services  they  render  one  another.  I 
cannot,  indeed,  see  any  other  limit  to  these  claims 
than  the  free  acceptance  or  free  refusal  of  those  to 
whom  these  services  are  offered 

Hence  it  comes  that  certain  men  resort  to  the  law 
to  curtail   the  natural  prerogatives  of   this   liberty. 
This  kind    of  spoliation  is  called    privile<:!:e  or  mo 
nopoly.      We   will  carefully  mdicate  its  origin  and 
character. 

Every  one  knows  that  the  services  Mdiich  he  offers 
m  the  oreneral  nrarket  are  the  more  ^\alued  and  bet- 
ter paid  for  the  scarcer  they  are.  Each  one,  then, 
will  ask  for  the  enactment  of  a  law  to  keep  out  of 
the  market  all  who  offer  services  similar  to  his. 

This  variety  of  spoliation  being  the  chief  sul)ject 
of  this  volume,  1  will  say  little  of  it  here,  and  will 
restrict  myself  to  one  remark  : 

When  the  monopoly  is  an  isolated   fact,  it  never 


188  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTFXniON. 

fails  to  enricli  tlie  person  to  wliom  the  law  has 
cjranted  it.  It  may  then  liappen  that  each  class  of 
workmen,  instead  of  scekiniij  the  overthrow  of  this 
monopoly,  claim  a  similar  one  fortliemselves.  This 
kind  of  spoliation,  thus  reduced  to  a  system, 
becomes  then  the  most  ridiculous  of  mystifications 
for  every  one,  and  the  definite  result  is  that  each 
one  believes  that  he  gains  more  from  a  general  mar- 
ket impoverished  by  all. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  add  that  this  singular  rtijimt 
also  brings  about  an  universal  antagonism  between 
all  classes,  all  professions,  and  all  peoples  ;  that  it 
requires  the  constant  but  always  uncertain  inter- 
ference of  government  ;  that  it  swarms  with  the 
abuses  which  have  been  the  subject  of  the  preced- 
ing paragraph  ;  that  it  places  all  industrial  pursuits 
in  hopeless  insecurity  ;  and  that  it  accustoms  men 
to  place  upon  the  law,  and  not  upon  themselves, 
the  responsibility  for  their  very  existence.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine  a  more  active  cause  of  social 
disturbance. 

.JUSTIFICATION. 

It  may  be  asked,  "  Why  this  ugly  word — spolia- 
tion ?  It  is  not  only  coarse,  but  it  wounds  and  irri- 
tates ;  it  turns  calm  and  moderate  men  against  you, 
and  embitters  the  controversy." 

I  earnestly  declare  that  I  respect  individuals  ;  I 
believe  in  the  sincerity  of  almost  all  the  friends  of 


NATURAL    HISTORY    OF    SPOLIATION.  189 

Protection,  and  I  do  not  claim  that  I  liave  any 
riii:;i)t  to  suspect  the  ])ersonal  honesty,  dehcacy  of 
feehn^,  or  phihmtliropy  of  any  one.  I  also  rej^eat 
that  Protection  is  the  work,  the  fat;il  work,  of  a 
common  error,  of  which  all,  or  neai'y  all,  are  at 
once  victims  and  accomplices.  But  [  cannot  pre- 
vent things  being  what  they  are. 

Just  imagine  some  Diogenes  putting  his  head  out 
of  his  tub  and  saying,  "  Athenians,  you  are  served 
by  slaves.  Have  you  never  thought  that  you 
practise  pn  your  brothers  the  most  iniquitous  spo- 
liation ?"  Or  a  tribune  speaking  in  the  forum, 
"  Romans  !  you  have  laid  the  foundation  of  all  your 
greatness  on  the  pillage  of  other  nations." 

They  would  state  only  undeniable  truths.  But 
must  we  conclude  from  this  that  Athens  and  Rome 
were  inhabited  only  by  dishonest  persons  ?  that 
Socrates  and  Plato,  Cato  and  Cincinnatus  were  des- 
])icable  characters  ? 

Who  could  harbor  such  a  thought  ?  But  these 
great  men  lived  amidst  surroundings  that  relieved 
their  consciences  of  tlie  sense  of  this  injustice. 
Even  Aristotle  could  not  conceive  the  idea  of  a 
society  existing  without  slavery.  In  modern  times 
slavery  has  continued  to  our  own  day  without 
causing  many  scruples  among  the  planters.  Armies 
have  served  as  the  instruments  of  grand  conquests 
— that  is  to  say,  of  grand  spoliations.  Is  this  say- 
ing that  they  are  not  composed  of  officers  and  men 


190  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

as  sensitive  of  tlieir  lienor,  even  more  so,  perliaps, 
than  men  in  ordinary  industrial  pursuits — men  who 
would  blush  at  the  very  thout^ht  of  theft,  and  who 
would  face  a  thousand  deaths  rather  than  stoop 
to  a  base  action. 

It  is  not  individuals  who  are  to  blame,  but  the 
general  movement  of  opinion  which  deludes  and 
deceives  them — a  movement  for  which  society  in 
genex'al  is  cul))al)le. 

Thus  is  it  with  monopoly.  I  accuse  the  system, 
and  not  individuals  ;  society  as  a  mass,  and  not  this 
or  that  one  of  its  members.  If  the  greatest  phi- 
losophers have  been  able  to  deceive  themselves  as 
to  the  iniquity  of  slavery,  how  much  easier  is  it 
for  farmers  and  manufacturers  to  deceive  themselves 
as  to  the  nature  and  effects  of  the  protective  system. 


II. 

TWO    SYSTEMS    OF    MORALS. 

• 

Arrived  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  chapter,  if 
he  gets  so  far,  I  imagine  I  hear  the  reader  say  : 

"  Well,  now,  was  I  wrong  in  accusing  political 
economists  of  being  dry  and  cold  ?  What  a  pict- 
ure of  humanity  !  Spoliation  is  a  fatal  power, 
almost    normal,    assuming   every    form,     practised 


TWO    SYSTEMS    OF    MORALS.  191 

under  every  pretext,  against  law  and  according  to 
law,  abusing  the  most  sacred  things,  alternately 
playing  upon  the  feebleness  and  the  credulity  of  the 
masses,  and  ever  growing  by  what  it  feeds  on. 
Could  a  more  mournful  picture  of  the  world  be 
imagined  than  this  ?" 

The  problem  is,  not  to  find  whether  the  picture 
is  mournful,  but  whether  it  is  true.  And  for  that 
we  have  the  testimony  of  history. 

It  is  singular  that  those  who  decry  political  econ- 
omy, because  it  investigates  men  and  the  world  as 
it  finds  tliem,  are  more  gloomy  than  political  econ- 
omy itself,  at  least  as  regards  the  past  and  the  ])res- 
ent.  Look  into  their  books  and  their  journals. 
What  do  you  find  ?  Bitterness  and  hatred  of  soci- 
ety. The  very  word  civilization  is  for  them  a 
synonym  for  injustice,  disorder,  and  anarchy.  They 
have  even  come  to  curse  llherty,  so  little  confidence 
have  they  in  the  development  of  the  human  race, 
the  result  of  its  natural  organization.  Liberty,  ac- 
cording to  them,  is  something  which  will  bring  hu- 
manity nearer  and  nearer  to  destruction. 

It  is  true  that  they  are  optimists  as  regards  the 
future.  For,  although  humanity,  in  itself  incapable, 
for  six  thousand  years  has  gone  astray,  a  revelation 
has  come,  which  has  pointed  out  to  men  the  way  of 
Bafety,  and,  if  the  flock  are  docile  and  obedient  to 
the  shepherd's  call,  will  lead  them  to  the  promised 
land,  where  well-being   may    be   attained    without 


192  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

effort,  where  order,  security,  and  prosjserity  are  the 
easy  reward  of  improvidence. 

To  this  end  liumanity,  as  Rousseau  said,  lias  only 
to  allow  these  reformers  to  cliange  the  physical  and 
moral  constitution  of  man. 

Political  economy  has  not  taken  upon  itself  the 
mission  of  finding  out  the  probable  condition  of  so- 
ciety had  it  pleased  God  to  make  men  different  from 
what  they  are.  It  may  be  unfortunate  that  Provi- 
dence, at  the  beginning,  neglected  to  call  to  His 
counsels  a  few  of  our  modern  reformers.  And,  as 
the  celestial  mechanism  would  have  been  entirely 
different  had  the  Creator  consulted  Alphonso  tM 
Wise,  society,  also,  had  He  not  neglected  the  advice 
of  Fourier,  would  have  been  very  different  from 
that  in  which  we  are  compelled  to  live,  and  move, 
and  breathe.  But,  since  we  are  here,  our  duty  is 
to  study  and  to  understand  His  laws,  especially  if 
the  amelioration  of  our  condition  essentially  de- 
pends upon  such  knowledge 

We  cannot  prevent  the  existence  of  unsatisfied 
desires  in  the  hearts  of  men. 

We  cannot  satisfy  these  desires  except  by  labor. 

We  cannot  deny  the  fact  that  man  has  as  much 
repugnance  for  labor  as  he  has  satisfaction  with  its 
results. 

Since  man  has  such  characteristics,  we  cannot 
prevent  the  existence  of  a  constant  tendency  among 
men  to  obtain  their  part  of  the  enjoyments  of  life 


TWO    SYSTEMS    OF    MORALS.  193 

while  throwing  upon  others,  by  force  or  by  trickery, 
the  burdens  of  labor.  It  is  not  for  us  to  belie  uni- 
versal history,  to  silence  the  voice  of  the  past, 
which  attests  that  this  has  been  the  con  ition  of 
things  since  the  beginning  of  the  world.  We  can- 
not deny  that  war,  slavery,  superstition,  the  abuses 
of  government,  privileges,  frauds  of  every  nature, 
and  monopolies,  have  been  the  incontestable  and 
terrible  manifestations  of  these  two  sentiments  unit- 
ed in  the  heart  of  man  :  desire  for  enjoyment  ;  ré- 
pugnance to  labor. 

''  In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread  !" 
But  every  one  wants  as  much  bread  and  as  little 
sweat  as  possible.  This  is  the  conclusion  of  his- 
tory. 

Thank  Heaven,  history  also  teaches  that  the  di- 
vision of  blessings  and  burdens  tends  to  a  more  ex- 
act equality  among  men.  Unless  one  is  prepared 
to  deny  the  light  of  the  sun,  it  must  be  admitted 
that,  in  this  respect  at  least,  society  has  made  some 
progress. 

If  this  be  true,  there  exists  in  society  a  natural 
and  providential  force,  a  law  which  causes  iniquity 
gradually  to  cease,  and  makes  justice  more  and  more 
a  reality. 

We  say  that  this  force  e.\ists  in  society,  and  that 
God  has  placed  it  there.  If  it  did  not  exist  we 
should  be  compelled,  with  the  socialists,  to  search 
for  it   in  those  artificial  means,  in  those  arrange- 


194  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

ments  wliidi  require  a,  fuudaineutal  clmnge  in  the 
physical  and  moral  constitution  of  man,  or  rather 
we  should  consider  that  search  idle  and  vain,  for 
the  reason  that  we  could  not  comprehend  the  action 
of  a  lever  without  a  place  of  support. 

Let  us,  tlien,  endeavor  to  indicate  that  beneficent 
force  v.liich  tends  progressively  to  overcome  the 
maleficent  force  to  which  we  have  given  the  name 
spoliation,  and  the  existence  of  which  is  only  too 
well  explained  by  reason  and  proved  by  experience. 

Every  maleficent  act  necessarily  has  two  terms — 
the  point  of  beginning  and  the  point  of  ending  ; 
the  man  who  performs  the  act  and  the  man  upon 
whom  it  is  performed  ;  or,  in  the  language'  of  the 
schools,  the  active  and  the  passive  agent.  There 
are,  then,  two  means  by  which  the  maleficent  act 
can  be  prevented  :  by  the  voluntary  absence  of  the 
active,  or  by  tlie  resistance  of  the  passive  agent. 
Wlience  two  systems  of  morals  arise,  not  antagonis- 
tic but  concurrent  :  religious  or  philosophical  moral- 
ity, and  the  morality  to  which  I  permit  myself  to 
apply  the  name  economical  (utilitarian). 

Religious  morality,  to  abolish  and  extirpate  the 
maleficent  act,  appeals  to  its  author,  to  man  in  his 
capacity  of  active  agent.  It  says  to  him  :  "  IZeform 
yourself  ;  purify  yourself  ;  cease  to  do  evil  ;  learn 
to  do  well  ;  conquer  your  passions  ;  sacrifice  your 
interests  ;  do  not  oppress  your  neighbor,  to  succor 
and  relieve  whom  is  your  duty  ;  be  first  just,  then 


TWO    SYSTEMS    OF    MORALS.  195 

generous.'"  This  morality  will  always  be  the  most 
beautiful,  the  most  touching,  that  which  will  exhibit 
the  human  race  in  all  its  majesty  ;  which  will  the 
best  lend  itself  to  the  offices  of  eloquence,  and  will 
most  excite  the  sympatliy  and  admiration  of  man- 
kind. 

Utilitarian  morality  works  to  the  same  end,  but 
especially  addresses  itself  to  man  in  his  capacity  of 
passive  agent.  It  points  out  to  him  the  conse- 
quences of  human  actions,  and,  by  this  simple 
exhibition,  stimulates  him  to  struggle  against  those 
which  injure,  and  to  honor  those  which  are  useful 
to  him.  It  aims  to  extend  among  the  oppressed 
masses  enough  good  sense,  enlightenment,  and  just 
defiance,  to  render  oppression  both  difficult  and 
dangerous. 

It  may  also  be  remarked  that  utilitarian  morality 
is  not  without  its  influence  upon  the  oppressor.  An 
act  of  spoliation  causes  good  and  evil — evil  for  him 
who  suffers  it,  good  for  him  in  whose  favor  it  is 
exercised — else  the  act  would  not  have  been  per- 
formed. But  the  good  by  no  means  compensates 
the  evil.  The  evil  alwaj^s,  and  necessarily,  predom- 
inates over  the  good,  because  the  very  fact  of 
oppression  occasions  a  loss  of  force,  creates  dangers, 
provokes  reprisals,  and  requires  costly  precautions. 
The  simple  exhibition  of  these  eiïects  is  not  then 
limited  to  retaliation  of  the  oppressed  ;  it  places  all, 
whose  hearts  are  not  perverted,  on  the  side  of  jus- 


196  SOPHISMS    OF    TROTECTION. 

tice,    and   alarms   the   security   of   the    oppressors 
themselves. 

But  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  tliis  morality 
Avhich  is  simply  a  scientific  demonstration,  and 
would  even  lose  its  efficiency  if  it  changed  its  char- 
acter ;  which  addresses  itself  not  to  the  heart  but 
to  the  intelligence  ;  which  seeks  not  to  persuade 
but  to  convince  ;  which  gives  proofs  not  counsels  ; 
Vvdiose  mission  is  not  to  move  but  to  enlighten,  and 
which  obtains  over  vice  no  other  victory  than  to 
deprive  it  of  its  booty — it  is  easy  to  understand,  I 
say,  how  this  morality  has  been  accused  of  being 
dry  and  prosaic.  The  reproach  is  true  without 
being  just.  It  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  political 
economy  is  not  everything,  does  not  comprehend 
everything,  is  not  the  universal  solvent.  But  who 
has  ever  made  such  an  exorbitant  pretension  in  its 
name  ?  The  accusation  would  not  be  well  founded 
unless  political  economy  j^resented  its  processes  as 
final,  and  denied  to  philosophy  and  religion  the  use 
of  their  direct  and  proper  means  of  elevating 
humanity.  Look  at  the  concurrei-!:  action  of 
morality,  properly  so  called,  and  of  j^olitical  econ- 
omy— the  one  inveighing  against  spoliation  by 
an  exposure  of  its  moral  ugliness,  the  other  bring- 
ing it  into  discredit  in  our  judgment,  by  showing  its 
evil  consequences.  Concede  that  the  triumph  of 
the  religious  moralist,  when  realized,  is  more  beau- 
tiful, more  consoling,  and  more  radical  ;  at  the  same 


TWO    SYSTEMS    OF    MORALS.  197 

time  it  is  not  easy  to  deny  tliat  the  triuiiipli  of 
economical  science  is  more  facile  and  more  cer- 
tain. 

In  a  few  lines,  more  valuable  than  many  volumes, 
J.  B.  Say  has  already  remarked  that  there  are  two 
Avays  of  removing  the  disorder  introduced  by  hypoc- 
risy into  an  honorable  family  :  to  reform  Tartuffe, 
or  sharjjen  the  wits  of  Orgon.  Molicre,  that  great 
painter  of  human  life,  seems  constantly  to  have  had 
in  view  the  second  jJi'ocess  as  the  more  efficient. 

Such  is  the  case  on  the  world's  stage.  Tell  me 
what  Ca3sar  did,  and  I  will  tell  you  what  were  the 
Romans  of  his  day. 

Tell  me  what  modern  diplomacy  lias  accom- 
plished, aîid  I  will  describe  the  moral  condition  of 
the  nations. 

We  should  not  pay  two  milliards  of  taxes  if  we  do 
not  appoint  those  who  consume  them  to  vote  them. 

We  should  not  have  so  much  trouble,  difficulty, 
and  expense  with  the  African  question,  if  we  were 
as  well  convinced  that  two  and  two  make  four  in 
political  economy  as  in  arithmetic. 

M.  Guizot  would  never  have  had  occasion  to  say  : 
"  France  is  rich  enough  to  pay  for  her  glory,"  if 
France  had  never  conceived  a  false  idea  of  glory. 

The  same  statesman  never  would  have  said  : 
"  Liberty  is  too  j^Tfdcwus  for  France  to  traffic  init,'^^ 
if  France  had  well  understood  that  liberty  and  a 
large  budget  are  incompatible. 


198  SOPHISMS    OF    I'ROTI'XTION. 

Let  religions  morality  then,  if  it  can,  toucli  tlic 
heart  of  the  Tartuffes,  the  Cœsars,  the  con(juerors 
of  Algeria,  the  sinecurists,  the  monopolists,  etc 
The  mission  of  political  economy  is  to  enlighten 
their  dupes.  Of  these  two  processes,  which  is  the 
more  efficient  aid  to  social  prog-ress  ?  1  believe  it 
is  the  second.  1  believe  tliat  humanity  cannot 
escape  the  necessity  of  first  Icarninir  a  defensive 
inorality.  I  have  read,  observed,  and  made  diligent 
inquiry,  and  have  been  unable  to  find  any  abuse, 
practised  to  ;.ny  considerable  extent,  that  has  per- 
ished by  voluntary  renunciation  on  the  part  of  those 
who  profited  by  it.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  seen 
many  that  have  yielded  to  the  manly  resistance  of 
those  who  suffered  by  them. 

To  describe  the  consequences  of  abuses  is  the 
most  efficient  way  of  destroying  the  abuses  them- 
selves. And  this  is  true  particularly  in  regard  to 
abuses  which,  like  the  protective  system,  while 
inflicting  real  evil  upon  the  masses,  are  to  those 
who  seem  to  profit  by  thr-  \  only  an  illusion  and  a 
deception. 

Well,  then,  does  this  species  of  morality  realize 
all  the  social  perfection  which  the  sympathetic 
nature  of  the  human  heart  and  its  noblest  faculties 
cause  us  to  hope  for  ?  This  I  by  no  means  pretend. 
Admit  the  general  diffusion  of  this  defensive 
morality — which,  after  all,  is  only  a  knowledge  that 
the  best   understood   interests   are  in  accord  with 


TWO    SYSTEMS    <>F    MORALS.  199 

j^^eneral  utility  and  justice.  A  society,  although 
very  well  rci^iilated,  might  not  be  very  attractive, 
wliere  there  were  no  knaves,  only  because  there  were 
no  fools  ;  where  vice,  always  latent,  and,  so  to 
speak,  overcome  by  famine,  would  only  stand  in 
need  of  available  ])lunder  in  order  to  he  restored  to 
vigor  ;  where  the  priulcTice  of  the  individual  would 
he  guarded  hy  the  vigilance  of  the  mass,  and, 
finally,  where  reforms,  regulating  external  acts, 
would  not  have  penetrated  to  the  consciences  of 
men.  Such  a  state  of  society  we  sometimes  see 
typified  in  one  of  those  exact,  rigorous,  and  just 
men  who  is  ever  ready  to  resent  the  slightest 
infringement  of  his  rights,  and  shrewd  in  avoiding 
impositions.  You  esteem  him — possibly  you  admire 
him.  You  may  make  him  your  deputy,  but  you 
would  not  necessarily  choose  him  for  a  friend. 

Let,  then,  the  two  moral  systems,  instead  of  crim- 
inating each  other,  act  in  concert,  and  attack  vice  at 
its  opposite  poles.  While  the  economists  perform 
their  task  in  uprooting  prejudice,  stimulating  just 
and  necessary  opposition,  studying  and  exposing  the 
real  nature  of  actions  and  things,  let  the  religious 
moralist,  on  his  jxirt,  perform  his  more  attractive, 
but  more  dithcult,  labor  ;  let  liiin  attack  the  very 
body  of  ini(|uity,  follow  it  to  its  most  vital  parts, 
paint  the  charms  of  beneficence,  self-denial,  and 
devotion,  open  the  fountains  of  virtue  where  we 
can  only  choke  the  sources  of  vice — this  is  his  duty. 


200  SOPHISMS    OF    I'ROTECTIOX. 

It  is  noble  and  beautiful.  But  why  docs  lie  dispute 
the  utility  of  that  which  belongs  to  us  ? 

In  a  society  which,  though  not  superlatively  vir- 
tuous, should  nevertheless  be  regulated  by  the  in- 
fluences of  economical  morcdity  (which  is  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  economy  of  society),  would  there  not  be 
a  field  for  the  progress  of  religious  morality  ? 

Habit,  it  has  been  said,  is  a  second  nature.  A 
countrj^  where  the  individual  had  become  unaccus- 
tomed to  injustice,  simply  by  the  force  of  an  enlight- 
ened public  opinion,  might,  indeed,  be  pitiable  ; 
but  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  well  prepared  to 
receive  an  education  more  elevated  and  more  pure. 
To  be  disaccustomed  to  evil  is  a  great  step  toward 
becoming  good.  Men  cannot  remain  stationary. 
Turned  aside  from  the  paths  of  vice  which  would 
lead  only  to  infamy,  they  appreciate  better  the 
attractions  of  virtue.  Possibly  it  may  be  necessary 
for  society  to  pass  through  this  prosaic  state,  where 
men  practise  virtue  by  calculation,  to  be  thence 
elevated  to  that  more  poetic  region  where  they  will 
no  longer  have  need  of  such  an  exercise. 


THE    TWO    HATCHETS.  201 

III. 

THE    TWO    HATCHETS. 

Pétition  of  Jacques  Boyihomme,   Carpenter,  to  M.   Cunin-  Gridain, 
Minister  of  Commerce. 

Me.  Manufacturer-Minister  :  I  am  a  carpenter, 
as  was  Jesus  ;  I  liandlc  the  hatchet  and  the  plane 
to  serve  yon. 

In  chopping  and  spHtting  from  morning  until 
night  in  the  domain  of  my  lord  the  King,  the  idea 
has  occurred  to  me  tliat  my  labor  was  as  mucli 
national   as  yours. 

And  accordingly  I  don't  understand  why  pro- 
tection should  not  visit  my  shop  as  M'cll  as  your 
manufactory. 

For  indeed,  if  you  make  cloths,  I  make  roofs. 
Both  by  different  means  protect  our  ]iatrons  from 
cold  and  rain.  But  I  have  to  run  after  customers 
while  business  seeks  you.  You  know  how  to 
manage  this  by  obtaining  a  monopoly,  while  my 
business  is  open  to  any  one  who  chooses  to  engage 
in  it. 

4 

What  is  there  astonishing  in  this  ?  Mr.  Cunin, 
the  Cabinet  Minister,  has  not  forgotten  Mr.  Cunin, 
the  manufacturer,  as  was  very  natural.  But  unfor- 
tunately, my  humble  occupation  has  not  given  a 
Minister  to  France,  although  it  has  given  a  Saviour 
to  the  world. 


202  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

And  this  Saviour,  in  the  immortal  code  which  lie 
bequeathed  to  men,  did  not  utter  the  smallest  word 
by  virtue  of  which  carpenters  might  feel  author- 
ized to  enrich  themselves  as  you  do,  at  the  expense 
of  others. 

Look,  then,  at  my  position.  I  earn  thirty  cents 
every  day,  except  Sundays  and  holidays.  If  I 
apply  to  3'ou  for  work  at  the  same  time  with  a 
Flemish  workman,  you  give  him  the  preference. 

But  I  need  clothing.  If  a  Belgian  weaver  puts 
his  cloth  beside  yours,  you  drive  both  him  and  his 
cloth  out  of  the  country.  Consequently,  forced  to 
buy  at  your  shop,  where  it  is  dearest,  my  pooi 
thirty  cents  are  really  worth  only  twenty-eight. 

What  did  I  say  ?  They  are  worth  only  twenty- 
six.  For,  instead  of  driving  the  Belgian  weaver 
away  at  your  own  expense  (which  would  be  the  least 
you  could  do)  you  compel  me  to  pay  those  who,  in 
your  interest,  force  him  out  of  the  market. 

And  since  a  large  number  of  your  fellow-legis- 
lators, with  whom  you  seem  to  have  an  excellent 
understanding,  take  away  from  me  a  cent  or  two 
each,  under  pretext  of  protecting  somebody's  coal, 
or  oil,  or  wheat,  when  the  balance  is  struck,  I  lind 
that  of  my  thirty  cents  1  have  only  fifteen  left  from 
the  pillage. 

Possibly  you  may  answer  that  those  few  pennies 
which  pass  thus,  without  compensation,  from  my 
pocket  to  yours,  support  a  number  of  people  about 


THE   TWO    HATCHETS.  203 

your  chateau^  and  at  the  same  time  assist  you  in 
kee])ing  np  yonr  establishment.  To  whicli,  if  you 
would  permit  me,  I  would  reply,  they  would  like- 
wise support  a  number  of  persons  in  my  cottage. 

However  this  may  be,  Hon.  Minister-Manufact- 
urer, knowing  that  1  should  meet  with  a  cold  recep- 
tion were  I  to  ask  you  to  renounce  the  restriction 
imposed  upon  your  customers,  as  I  have  a  right  to, 
I  prefer  to  follow  the  fashion,  and  to  demand  for 
myself,  also,  a  little  morsel  oi  protection. 

To  this,  doubtless,  you  will  interpose  some  objec- 
tions. "  Friend,"  yoii  will  say,  "  I  would  be  glad 
to  protect  you  and  your  colleagues  ;  but  how  can  I 
confer  such  favors  upon  the  labor  of  carpenters  ? 
Shall  I  prohibit  the  importation  of  houses  by  land 
and  by  sea  ?" 

This  would  seem  sufficiently  ridiculous,  but  by 
giving  much  thought  to  the  subject,  I  have  discov- 
ered a  way  to  protect  the  children  of  St.  Joseph, 
and  you  will,  I  trust,  the  more  readily  grant  it  since 
it  differs  in  no  respect  from  the  privilege  which  you 
vote  for  yourself  every  year.  This  wonderful  way 
is  to  prohibit  the  use  of  sharp  hatchets  in  France. 

I  say  that  this  restriction  would  be  neither  more 
illogical  nor  arbitrary  than  that  which  you  subject 
us  to  in  regard  to  your  cloth. 

Why  do  you  drive  away  the  Belgians?  Because 
they  sell  cheajjcr  than  you  do.  And  why  do  they 
sell  cheaper  than   you  do  ?     Because   they  are   in 


204  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

some  way  or  another  your  superiors  as  maniifact- 
urers. 

Between  yon  and  the  Belgians,  then,  there  is 
exactly  the  same  difference  that  there  is  between  a 
dull  hatchet  and  a  sharp  one.  And  you  compel 
me,  a  carpenter,  to  buy  the  workmanship  of  your 
dull  hatchet  ! 

Consider  France  a  laborer,  obliged  to  live  by  his 
daily  toil,  and  desiring,  among  other  things,  to  pur- 
chase cloth.  There  are  two  means  of  doing  this. 
The  first  is  to  card  the  wool  and  weave  the  cloth 
himself  ;  the  second  is  to  manufacture  clocks,  or 
wines,  or  wall-paper,  or  something  of  the  sort,  and 
exchange  them  in  Belgium  for  cloth. 

The  process  which  gives  the  larger  results  may 
be  represented  by  the  sharp  hatchet  ;  the  other 
process  by  the  dull  one. 

You  will  not  deny  that  at  the  present  day  in 
France  it  is  more  difficult  to  manufacture  cloth  than 
to  cultivate  the  vine — the  former  is  the  dull  hatchet, 
this  latter  the  sharp  one — on  the  contrary,  you  make 
this  greater  difficulty  the  very  reason  why  you 
recommend  to  us  the  worst  of  the  two  hatchets. 

Now,  then,  be  consistent,  if  you  will  not  be  just, 
and  treat  the  poor  carpenters  as  well  as  you  treat 
yourself.  Make  a  law  which  shall  read  :  "  It  is 
forbidden  to  use  l)eams  or  shingles  which  have  not 
been  fashioned  by  dull  hatchets." 


INFERIOR  COUNCIL  OF  LABOR.         205 

And  joii  will  immediately  porceivc  the  result. 

AVhere  we  now  strike  an  hundred  blows  with  the 
axe  we  shall  be  oblii2;ed  to  give  three  liundred. 
What  a  powerful  encouragement  to  industry  !  Ap 
prentices,  journeymen,  and  masters,  we  should 
suffer  no  more.  We  should  be  greatly  sought  after, 
and  go  away  well  paid.  Whoever  wishes  to  enjoy 
a  roof  must  leave  us  to  make  his  tariff,  just  as 
buyers  of  cloth  are  now  obliged  to  submit  to  you. 

As  for  those  free-trade  theorists,  should  they  ever 
venture  to  call  the  utility  of  this  system  in  question, 
we  should  know  where  to  go  for  an  unanswerable 
argument.  Your  investigation  of  1S34:  is  at  our 
service.  We  should  fight  them  with  that,  for  there 
you  have  admirably  pleaded  the  cause  of  prohibi- 
tion, and  of  dull  hatchets,  which  are  both  the  same. 


TV. 

INFERIOR    COUNCIL    OF    LABOR. 

"What!  You  have  the  assurance  to  demand 
for  every  citizen  the  right  to  buy,  sell,  trade,  ex- 
change, and  to  render  service  for  service  according 
to  his  own  discretion,  on  the  sole  condition  that  he 
will  conduct  himself  honestly,  and  not  defraud  the 


206  SOPHISMS  ok  trotection. 

revenue  ?  Would  jou  rob  tlie  workinginan  of  his 
labor,  his  wages,  and  his  bread  ?" 

This  is  what  is  said  to  us.  I  k'now  what  tliu  gen- 
eral opinion  is  ;  but  I  have  desired  to  know  what 
tlie  laborers  themselves  think.  I  have  had  an  ex- 
cellent opportunity  of  finding  out. 

It  was  not  one  of  those  Superior  Councils  of 
Industry  (Committee  on  the  Revision  of  the  Tariff), 
where  large  manufacturers,  who  style  themselves 
laborers,  influential  ship -builders  who  imagine 
themselves  seamen,  and  wejilthy  bondholders  who 
think  themselves  workmen,  meet  and  legislate  in 
behalf  of  that  philanthropy  with  whose  nature  we 
are  so  well  acquainted. 

No,  they  were  workmen  "  to  the  manor  born," 
real,  practical  laborers,  such  as  joiners,  C9,rpenters, 
masons,  tailors,  shoemakers,  blacksmiths,  grocers, 
etc.,  etc.,  who  had  established  in  my  village  a 
Mutual  Aid  Society.  Upon  my  own  private  author- 
ity I  transformed  it  into  an  Inferior  Council  of 
Labor  (People's  Committee  for  Revising  the  Tariff), 
and  I  obtained  a  report  which  is  as  good  as  any 
other,  although  unencumbered  by  figures,  and  not 
distended  to  the  proportions  of  a  quarto  volume 
and  printed  at  the  expense  of  the  State. 

The  subject  of  my  inquiry  was  the  real  or  sup- 
posed influence  of  the  protective  system  upon  these 
poor  people.  Tlie  President,  indeed,  informed  me 
that  the   institution  of   such  an  inquiry  was  some- 


INFERIOR    COUNCIL    OF    LABOR.  207 

Avli.'it  ill  contravention  of  tlic  ]-)i-incip]es  of  the  soci- 
ety. For  in  France,  the  land  of  liberty,  those  who 
desire  to  form  associations  mnst  renounce  politi- 
cal discussions — that  is  to  say,  the  discussion  of 
their  common  interests.  However,  after  much 
}iesit3,tion,  he  made  the  question  the  order  of  the 
day. 

The  assembly  was  divided  into  as  many  sub-com- 
mittees as  there  were  different  trades  represented. 
A  blank  was  handed  to  each  sub-committee,  which, 
after  fifteen  days'  discussion,  was  to  be  filled  and 
returned. 

On  the  appointed  day  the  venerable  President 
took  the  chair  (ofiicial  style,  for  it  was  only  a  stool), 
and  found  upon  the  table  (official  style,  again,  for 
it  was  a  deal  jDlank  across  a  barrel)  a  dozen  reports, 
which  he  read  in  succession. 

The  first  presented  was  that  of  the  tailors.  Here 
it  is,  as  accurately  as  if  it  had  been  photographed  : 

RESULTS  OF  PROTECTION-REPORT    OF  THE  TAILORS. 


Advantages. 
None 


Disadvantages. 

1.  On  account  of  the  protective  tariff,  we  pay  more 
for  our  own  bread,  meat,  sugar,  thread,  etc.,  winch  is 
equivalent  to  a  considerable  diminution  of  our  wages. 

2.  On  account  of  the  protective  tariff,  our  patrons  are  \  every  light,  and 
ali^o  obliged  to  i)ay  more  for  everything,  and  have  less  have  been  unable  to 
to  spend  for  clothes,  consequently  we  have  less  work 
and  smaller  profits. 

3.  On  account  of  the  protective  tariff,  clothes  are 
expensive,  and  people  make  them  wear  longer,  which 
results  in  a  loss  of  work,  and  compels  us  to  offer  our 
«ervices  at  greatly  reduced  rates. 


1.  We  have  exam- 
ined the  question  in 


perceive  a  single 
point  in  regard  to 
which  the  protec- 
tive system  is  ad- 
vantageous to  our 
trade. 


208 


SOPHISMS    OF    PPOTECTION. 


Here  is  another  report 


EPPEUTS  OF  PROTECTION— REPORT  OF  THE  BLACKSMITHS, 

Disadvantages.  Advantages. 

1.  The  protective  systt'm  imposes  a  tjix  (which  does 
not  got  into  tlie  Treasury)  every  time  we  eat,  drink, 
warm,  or  clollie  ourseivis. 

2.  It  iiiiputics  il  similar  tax  iii)on  our  tieiKlibor.*,  and 
hence,  havini:  less  money,  most,  of  tlu^in  use  wooden 
pegs,  instead  of  buying  nails,  which  deprives  us  of 
labor.  None. 

3.  It  keeps  the  price  of  iron  so  high  that  it  can  no 
longer  be  used  in  the  country  for  ploughs,  or  gates,  or 
house  fixtures,  and  our  trade,  wliich  might  give  work 
to  so  many  wtio  have  none,  does  not  even  give  our- 
selves entnigh  to  do. 

4.  The  deficit  occasioned  in  the  Treasury  by  those 
goods  which  do  not  enter  is  made  up  by  taxes  on  our 
salt. 

The  other  reports,  with  which  I  will  not  trouble 
the  reader,  told  the  same  story.  Gardeners,  car- 
penters, shoemakers,  boatmen,  all  complained  of  the 
same  grievances. 

I  am  sorry  there  were  no  day  laborers  in  our  asso- 
ciation. Their  report  would  certainly  have  been 
exceedingly  instructive.  But,  unfortunately,  the 
poor  laborei's  of  our  province,  all  protected  as  they 
ai'e,  have  not  a  cent,  and,  after  having  taken  care 
of  their  cattle,  cannot  go  themselves  to  the  Mutual 
Aid  Society.  The  pretended  favors  of  protection 
do  not  prevent  them  from  being  the  pariahs  of 
modern  society. 

What  I  would  especially  remark  is  the  good 
senee  with  which  our  villagers  have  perceived  not 


DEARNESS — CHEAPNESS.  209 

only  tlie  direct  evil  results  of  protection,  but  also 
the  indirect  evil  which,  affecting  their  patrons,  re- 
acts upon  themselves. 

This  is  a  fact,  it  seems  to  me,  which  the  econo- 
mists of  the  school  of  the  Moniteur  Industriel  do 
not  understand. 

And  possibly  some  men,  who  are  fascinated  by  a 
very  little  protection,  the  agriculturists,  for  instance, 
would  voluntarily  renounce  it  if  they  noticed  this 
side  of  the  question.  Possibly,  they  might  say  to 
themselves  :  "  It  is  better  to  support  one's  self  sur- 
rounded by  well-to-do  neighbors,  than  to  be  pro- 
tected in  the  midst  of  ])overty."  For  to  seek  to 
encourage  every  branch  of  industry  by  successively 
creating  a  void  around  them,  is  as  vain  as  to  attempt 
to  jump  away  from  one's   shadow. 


V. 

I>ï;AENESS — CHEAPNESS. 

I  CONSIDER  it  my  duty  to  say  a  few  words  in 
regard  to  the  delusion  caused  by  the  words  dear 
and  cheap.  At  the  first  glance,  I  am  aware,  you 
may  be  disposed  to  find  these  remarks  somewhat 
subtile,  but  whether  subtile  or  not,  the  question  is 
whether  they  are  true.     For  my  part  I  consider 


210  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

them  perfectly  true,  and  particularly  well  adapted 
to  cause  reflection  among  a  large  number  of  those 
who  cherish  a  sincere  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  pro- 
tection. 

Whether  advocates  of  free  trade  or  defenders  of 
protection,  we  are  all  obliged  to  make  use  of  the 
expression  deamess  and  cheapness.  The  former 
take  sides  in  behalf  of  cheapness,  having  in  view 
the  interests  of  consumers.  The  latter  pronounce 
themselves  in  favor  of  dearness,  preoccupying  them- 
selves solely  with  the  interests  of  the  producer. 
Others  intervene,  saying,  producer  and  consumer 
are  one  and  the  sam.e,  which  leaves  wholly  unde- 
cided the  question  whether  cheapness  or  dearness 
ought  to  be  the  object  of  legislation. 

In  this  conflict  of  opinion  it  seems  to  me  that 
there  is  only  one  position  for  the  law  to  take — to 
allow  j)rices  to  regulate  themselves  naturally.  But 
the  principle  of  '•  let  alone"  has  obstinate  enemies. 
They  insist  upon  legislation  without  even  knowing 
the  desired  objects  of  legislation.  It  would  seem, 
however,  to  be  the  duty  of  those  who  wish  to  create 
high  or  low  prices  artiflcially,  to  state,  and  to  sub- 
stantiate, the  reasons  of  their  preference.  The  bur- 
den of  proof  is  upon  them.  Liberty  is  always 
considered  beneficial  until  the  contrary  is  proved, 
and  to  allow  prices  naturally  to  regulate  themselves 
is  liberty.  But  the  rôles  have  been  changed.  The 
partisans  of  high  prices  have  obtained  a  triumph 


DEARS  ESS CHEAPNESS.  211 

for  their  system,  and  it  lias  fallen  to  defenders  of 
natnral  prices  to  prove  the  advantages  of  their  sys- 
tem. The  argmnent  on  both  sides  is  conducted 
Avith  two  words.  It  is  very  essential,  then,  to  under- 
stand their  meaning. 

It  nmst  be  granted  at  the  outset  that  a  series  of 
events  have  liappened  well  calculated  to  disconcert 
both  sides. 

In  order  to  produce  high  jpr ices  the  protectionists 
liave  obtained  high  tariffs,  and  still  low  prices  have 
come  to  disappoint  their  exjjectations. 

In  order  to  produce  low  prices^  free  traders  have 
sometimes  carried  their  point,  and,  to  their  great 
astonishment,  the  result  in  some  instances  has  been 
an  increase  instead  of  a  reduction  in  prices. 

For  instance,  in  France,  to  protect  farmers,  a  law 
was  ]3assed  imposing  a  duty  of  twenty -two  per  cent 
upon  imported  wools,  and  the  result  has  been  that 
native  wools  have  been  sold  for  much  lower  jj rices 
than  before  the  passage  of  the  laW'. 

In  England  a  law  in  behalf  of  the  consumers 
was  passed,  exempting  foreign  wools  from  duty, 
and  the  consequence  has  been  that  native  wools 
have  sold  higher  than  ever  before. 

And  this  is  not  an  isolated  fact,  for  the  price  of 
wool  has  no  special  or  peculiar  nature  which  takes 
it  out  of  the  general  law  governing  prices.  The 
same  fact  has  been  reproduced  under  analogous  cir- 
cumstances.    Contrary  to  all  expectation,  protection 


212  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

has  frequently  resulted  in  low  prices,  and  fi-ce  trade 
in  high  prices.  Hence  there  has  been  a  deal  of 
perplexity  in  the  discussion,  the  protectionisCG  say- 
ing to  their  adversaries  :  "  These  low  prices  that 
you  talk  about  so  much  are  the  result  of  our  sys- 
tem ;"  and  the  free  traders  replying  :  "  Those  high 
prices  which  you  find  so  profitable  are  the  conse- 
quence of  free  trade." 

There  evidently  is  a  misunderstanding,  an  illu- 
sion, which  must  be  dispelled^  This  I  will  en- 
deavor to  do. 

Suppose  two  isolated  nations,  each  composed  of 
a  million  inhabitants  ;  admit  that,  other  things 
being  equal,  one  nation  had  exactly  twice  as  much 
of  everything  as  the  other — twice  as  much  wheat, 
wine,  iron,  fuel,  boohs,  clothing,  furniture,  etc.  It 
will  be  conceded  that  one  will  have  twice  as  much 
wealth  as  the  other. 

There  is,  however,  no  reason  for  the  statement 
that  the  ahsolute  prices  are  diffei'cnt  in  the  two 
nations.  They  j)ossibly  may  be  higher  in  the 
wealthiest  nation.  It  may  happen  that  in  the 
United  States  everything  is  nominally  dearer  than 
in  Poland,  and  that,  nevertheless,  the  people  there 
are  less  generally  supplied  with  everything  ;  by 
which  it  may  be  seen  that  the  abundance  of  prod- 
ucts, and  not  the  absolute  price,  constitutes  wealth. 
In  order,  then,  accurately  to  compare  free  trade  and 
protection,  the  inquiry  should  not  be  which  of  the 


DEARNESS — CirEAPNESS.  213 

two  causes  high  prices  or  ]o\v  prices,  hut  which  of 
the  two  produces  abundance  or  scarcity. 

For  observe  this  :  Products  are  exchanged,  the 
one  for  the  other,  and  a  rehitive  scarcity  and  a  rela- 
tive abundance  leave  the  absolute  price  exactly  at 
the  same  point,  but  not  so  tlic  condition  of  men. 

Let  us  look  into  the  subject  a  little  further. 

Since  the  increase  and  the  reduction  of  duties 
have  been  accompanied  by  results  so  different  from 
what  had  been  expected,  a  fall  of  prices  frequently 
succeeding  the  increase  of  the  tariff,  and  a  rise  some- 
times following  a  reduction  of  duties,  it  has  become 
necessary  for  political  economy  to  attempt  the  ex- 
planation of  a  phenomenon  which  so  overthrows 
received  ideas  ;  for,  whatever  may  be  said,  science 
is  simply  a  faithful  exposition  and  a,  true  explana- 
tion of  facts. 

This  phenomenon  may  be  easily  explained  by 
one  circumstance  which  should  never  be  lost  sight 
of. 

It  is  that  there  are  tivo  causes  for  high  j^rjces, 
and  not  one  merely. 

The  same  is  true  of  low  prices.  One  of  the  best 
estabHshed  principles  of  political  economy  is  that 
price  is  determined  by  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand. 

The  price  is  then  affected  by  two  conditions — the 
demand  and  the  supply.  These  conditions  arc 
necessarily  subject  to  variation.     The  relations  of 


214  SOPHISMS  OF  protection. 

deniaiui  to  snj)ply  may  be  exactly  counterbalanced, 
or  may  be  greatly  disproportic^natc,  and  the  varia- 
tions of  price  are  almost  interminable. 

Prices  rise  either  on  account  of  augmented  de- 
mand or  diminished  supply. 

They  fall  by  reason  of  an  augmentation  of  the 
supply  or  a  diminution  of  the  demand. 

Consequently  there  are  two  kinds  of  dearness, 
and  two  kinds  of  cheapness.  There  is  a  bad  dear- 
ness,  which  results  from  a  diminution  of  the  sup- 
ply ;  for  this  implies  scarcity  and  privation.  There 
is  a  good  dearness — that  which  results  from  an 
increase  of  demand  ;  for  this  indicates  the  aug- 
mentation of  the  general  wealth. 

There  is  also  a  good  cheapness,  resulting  from 
alnmdance.  And  there  is  a  baneful  cheapness — 
such  as  results  from  the  cessation  of  demand,  the 
inability  of  consumers  to  purchase. 

And  observe  this  :  Prohibition  causes  at  the 
same  time  both  the  dearness  and  the  cheapness 
which  are  of  a  bad  nature  ;  a  bad  dearness,  resulting 
from  a  diminution  of  the  supply  (this  indeed  is  its 
avowed  object),  and  a  bad  cheapness,  resulting  from 
a  diminution  of  the  demand,  because  it  gives  a 
false  direction  to  capital  and  labor,  and  overwhelms 
consumers  with  taxes  and  restrictions. 

So  that,  as  regards  the  j)riGe,  these  two  tendencies 
neutralize  each  other  ;  and  for  this  reason,  the  pro- 
tective system,   restricting  the  supply  and  the  de- 


DEAENESS — CHEAPNESS.  215 

mand  at  the  same  time,  does  not  realize  the  higli 
prices  which  are  its  object. 

But  with  respect  to  the  condition  of  the  people, 
these  two  tendencies  do  not  neutralize  each  other  ; 
on  the  contrary,  they  unite  in  impoverishing  them. 

The  effect  of  free  trade  is  exactly  the  opposite. 
Possibly  it  does  not  cause  the  cheapness  which  it 
promises  ;  for  it  also  has  two  tendencies,  the  one 
toward  that  desirable  form  of  cheapness  resulting 
from  the  increase  of  supply,  or  from  abundance  ; 
the  other  toward  that  dearness  consequent  upon 
the  increased  demand  and  the  development  of  the 
general  wealth.  These  two  tendencies  neutralize 
themselves  as  regards  the  mere  price  /  but  they  con- 
cur in  their  tendency  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of 
mankind.  In  a  word,  under  the  protective  system 
men  recede  toward  a  condition  of  feebleness  as 
regards  both  supply  and  demand  ;  under  the  free- 
trade  system,  they  advance  toward  a  condition 
where  development  is  gradual  without  any  neces- 
sary increase  in  the  absolute  prices  of  things. 

Price  is  not  a  good  criterion  of  wealth.  It  might 
continue  the  same  when  society  had  relapsed  into 
the  most  abject  misery,  or  had  advanced  to  a  high 
state  of  prosperity. 

Let  me  make  application  of  this  doctrine  in  a  few 
words  :  A  farmer  in  the  south  of  France  supposes 
himself  as  rich  as  Croesus,  because  he  is  protected 
by  law  from  foreign  competition.     He  is  as  poor  as 


210  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTECTION. 

Job — no  matter,  he  will  none  the  less  suppose  that 
this  protection  will  sooner  or  later  make  him  rich. 
Under  these  circumstances,  if  the  question  was  pro- 
pounded to  him,  as  it  was  by  the  committee  of  tne 
Legislature,  in  these  terms  :  "  Do  you  Vv'ant  to  be 
subject  to  foreign  competition  ?  yes,  or  no,"  his  first 
answer  would  be  "  No,"  and  the  committee  would 
record  his  reply  with  great  enthusiasm. 

We  should  go,  however,  to  the  bottom  of  things. 
Doubtless  foreign  coni.petition,  and  competition  of 
any  kind,  is  always  inopportune  ;  and,  if  any  trade 
could  be  permanently  rid  of  it,  business,  for  a 
time,  would  be  prosperous. 

But  protection  is  not  an  isolated  favor.  It  is  a 
system.  If,  in  order  to  protect  the  farmer,  it  occa- 
sions a  scarcity  of  wheat  and  of  beef,  in  behalf  of 
other  industries  it  produces  a  scarcity  of  iron,  cloth, 
fuel,  tools,  etc. — in  short,  a  scarcity  of  everything. 

If,  then,  the  scarcity  of  wheat  has  a  tendency  to 
increase  the  price  by  reason  of  the  diminution  of 
the  supply,  the  scarcity  of  all  other  products  for 
which  wheat  is  exchanged  has  likewise  a  tendency 
to  depreciate  the  value  of  wheat  on  account  of  a 
falling  off  of  the  demand  ;  so  that  it  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  wheat  will  be  a  mill  dearer  under 
a  protective  tariff  than  under  a  system  of  free 
trade.  This  alone  is  certain,  that  inasmuch  as  there 
is  a  smaller  amount  of  everything  in  the  country, 
each  individual  will  be  more  poorly  provided  with 
everything. 


DEARNESS CHEAPNESS.  217 

The  farmer  would  do  well  to  consider  whether  it 
would  not  1)0  more  desirable  for  him  to  allow  the 
importation  of  wheat  and  beef,  and,  as  a  conse- 
quence, to  be  surrounded  bj  a  well-to-do  communi- 
ty, able  to  consume  and  to  pay  for  every  agricult- 
ural product. 

There  is  a  certain  province  where  the  men  are 
covered  with  rags,  dwell  in  hovels,  and  subsist  on 
chestnuts  ?  Plow  can  agriculture  flourish  there  ? 
What  can  they  make  the  earth  produce,  with  the 
expectation  of  profit  ?  Meat  ?  They  eat  none. 
Milk  ?  They  drink  only  the  water  of  springs.  But- 
ter ?  It  is  an  article  of  luxury  far  beyond  them. 
"Wool  ?  They  get  along  without  it  as  much  as 
possible.  Can  any  one  imagine  that  all  these 
objects  of  consumption  can  be  thus  left  untouclied 
by  the  masses,  without  lowering  ])rices  ? 

That  which  we  say  of  a  farmer,  we  can  say  of  a 
manufacturer.  Cloth-makers  assart  that  foreiirn 
competition  will  lower  prices  owing  to  the  increased 
quantity  offered.  Very  well,  but  are  not  these 
prices  raised  by  the  increase  of  the  demand  ?  Is  the 
consumption  of  cloth  a  fixed  and  invariable  quan- 
tity ?  Is  each  one  as  well  provided  with  it  as  he 
might  and  should  be  ?  And  if  the  general  wealth 
were  developed  by  the  abolition  of  all  these  taxo:> 
and  hindrances,  would  not  the  first  use  made  of  it 
by  the  population  be  to  clothe  themselves  better  ? 

Therefore  the  question,  the  eternal  question,   is 


2 IS  sorniSMS  of  protection. 

not  wlietlicr  protection  favors  tin's  or  tliat  special 
branch  of  industry,  but  whether,  all  things  con- 
sidered, restriction  is,  in  its  nature,  more  profitable 
tlian  freedom  ? 

Now,  no  person  can  maintain  that  proposition. 
And  just  this  explains  the  admission  which  our  op- 
ponents continually  make  to  us  :  "  You  are  rij^ht 
on  principle." 

If  that  is  true,  if  restriction  aids  each  special  in- 
dustry only  through  a  greater  injury  to  the  general 
prosperity,  let  us  understand,  then,  that  the  price 
itself,  considering  that  alone,  expresses  a  relation 
between  each  special  industry  and  the  general  in- 
dustry, between  the  supply  and  the  demand,  and 
that,  reasoning  from  these  premises,  this  remunera- 
tive price  (the  object  of  protection)  is  more  hin- 
dered than  favored  b}'  it. 

APPENDIX. 

We  publish  an  article  entitled  Dearness- Cheap- 
ness, which  gained  for  us  the  two  following  letters. 
We  publish  them,  with  the  answers  : 

"  Deae  Me.  Editor  :  You  iipset  all  mj'  ideas.  I  preached  in 
favor  of  free  trade,  and  found  it  verj'  convenient  to  put  prom- 
inentlj'  forward  the  idea  of  cheapness.  I  went  everywhere, 
aaying,  'With  free  trade,  bread,  meat,  woollens,  linen,  iron,  and 
coal  will  fall  in  price.'  This  displeased  those  who  sold,  but 
delighted  those  who  bought.  Now,  you  raise  a  doubt  as  to 
whether  cheapness  is  the  result  of  free  trade.     But  if  not,  of 


DEARNESS — CHEAPNESS.  219 

what  use  is  it  ?  "What  will  the  people  gain,  if  foreign  competi- 
tion, which  may  interfere  with  them  in  their  sales,  does  not 
favor  them  in  their  purchases  ?" 

Mr  Dkar  Fkee  Tkadek  :  Allow  us  to  say  that 
you  have  but  half  read  the  article  which  provok- 
ed your  letter.  "We  said  that  free  trade  acted  pre- 
cisely like  roads,  canals,  and  railways,  like  every- 
thing which  facilitates  comuiuuicatious,  and  hke 
everything  which  destroys  obstacles.  Its  first  ten- 
dency is  to  increase  the  quantity  of  the  article  which 
is  relieved  from  duties,  and  consequently  to  lower  its 
price.  But  by  increasing,  at  the  same  time,  the 
quantity  of  all  tlie  things  for  wdiich  this  article  is 
exchanged,  it  increases  the  demand^  and  conse- 
quently the  price  rises.  You  ask  us  what  the  peo- 
ple will  gain.  Suppose  they  have  a  balance  with 
certain  scales,  in  each  one  of  which  they  have  for 
their  use  a  certain  quantity  of  the  articles  which  you 
have  enumerated.  If  a  little  grain  is  put  in  one 
scale  it  will  gradually  sink,  but  if  an  equal  quan- 
tity of  cloth,  iron,  and  coal  is  added  in  the  others, 
the  equilii^rium  will  be  maintained.  Looking  at 
the  beam  above,  there  will  be  no  change.  Looking 
at  the  people,  we  shall  see  them  better  fed,  clothed, 
and  warmed. 

"  Deak  Mb.  Editor  :  I  am  a  cloth  manufacturer,  and  a  pro- 
tectionist. I  confess  that  your  article  on  dearness  and  cheap- 
ness has  led  me  to  reflect.  It  has  something  specious  about  it, 
and  if  well  proven,  would  work  my  conversion." 


220  soniiSMS  of  pkotection. 

My  Dear  Protectionist  :  We  sny  tliat  tlic  end 
and  aim  of  your  restrictive  ineasnres. is  a  wrongful 
one — artificial  dearncss.  But  Ave  do  not  say  that 
they  always  realize  the  hopes  of  those  who  initiate 
them.  It  is  certain  that  they  inflict  on  the  consumer 
aU  the  evils  of  dearness.  It  is  not  certain  that  the 
producer  gels  the  profit.  Why  ?  Because  if  "they 
diminish  the  supply  they  also  diminish  the  demand. 

This  proves  that  in  the  economical  arrangement 
of  this  world  there  is  a  moral  force,  a  vis  medica- 
trix^  which  in  the  long  run  causes  inordinate  ambi- 
tion to  become  the  prey  of  a  delusion. 

Pray,  notice,  sir,  that  one  of  the  elements  of  the 
prosperity  of  each  special  branch  of  industry  is  the 
general  prosperity.  The  rent  of  a  house  is  not 
merely  in  proportion  to  what  it  has  cost,  but  also  to 
the  number  and  means  of  the  tenants.  Do  two 
houses  which  are  precisely  alike  necessarily  rent  for 
the  same  sum  ?  Certainly  not,  if  one  is  in  Paris 
and  the  other  in  Lower  Brittany.  Let  us  never 
speak  of  a  price  Avithout  regarding  the  conditions, 
and  let  us  understand  that  there  is  nothing  more 
futile  than  to  try  to  build  the  prosperity  of  the  parts 
on  the  ruin  of  the  whole.  This  is  the  attempt  of 
the  restrictive  system. 

Competition  always  has  been,  and  always  will  be, 
disagreeable  to  those  who  are  affected  by  it.  Thus 
we  see  that  in  all  times  and  in  all  places  men  try  to 
get  rid  of  it.     We  know,  and  you  too,  perhaps,   a 


DEARNESS— CHEAPNESS.  221 

municipal  council  where  the  resident  merchants 
make  a  furious  war  on  the  foreign  ones.  Their  pro- 
jectiles are  import  duties,  fines,  etc.,  etc. 

Now,  just  think  what  would  have  become  of 
Paris,  for  instance,  if  this  war  had  been  carried  on 
there  with  success. 

Suppose  that  the  first  shoemaker  who  settled 
there  had  succeeded  in  keeping  out  all  others,  and 
that  the  first  tailor,  the  first  mason,  the  first  printer, 
the  first  watchmaker,  the  fi.rst  hairdresser,  the  first 
physician,  the  first  baker,  had  been  equally  fortu- 
nate. Paris  would  still  be  a  village,  with  twelve 
or  fifteen  hundred  inhabitants.  But  it  was  not 
thus.  Each  one,  except  those  w^hom  you  still  keep 
away,  came  to  make  money  in  this  market,  and  that 
is  precisely  what  has  built  it  up.  It  has  been  a 
long  scries  of  collisions  for  the  enemies  of  compe- 
tition, and  from  one  collision  after  another,  Paris 
has  l)CCome  a  city  of  a  million  inhabitants.  The 
general  j^rosperity  has  gained  by  this,  doubtless, 
l)ut  have  the  shoemakers  and  tailors,  individually, 
lost  anything  by  it  ?  For  you,  this  is  the  question. 
As  competitors  came,  you  said  :  The  price  of  boots 
will  fail.  Has  it  been  so  ?  No,  for  if  the  swpjyly 
lias  increased,  the  demand  has  increased  also. 

Thus  w^ill  it  be  with  cloth  ;  therefore  let  it  come 
in.  It  is  true  that  you  will  have  more  competitors, 
but  you  will  also  have  more  customers,  and  richer 
ones.       Did  you-  ne^^er  think  of  this  when  seeing 


222  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

nine  tenths  of  your  countrymen  deprived  during 
the  winter  of  that  superior  cloth  that  you  make  ? 

This  is  not  a  very  long  lesson  to  learn.  If  you 
wish  to  prosper,  let  your  customers  do  the  same. 

When  this  is  once  known,  each  one  will  seek  his 
welfare  in  the  general  welfare.  Then,  jealousies 
between  individuals,  cities,  provinces,  and  nations 
will  no  Ioniser  vex  the  world. 


YI. 

TO    AETISANS    AND    LABORERS. 

Many  papers  have  attacked  me  before  you. 
"Will  you  not  read  my  defence  ? 

I  am  not  mistrustful.  When  a  man  writes  or 
speaks,  I  believe  that  he  thinks  what  he  says. 

What  is  the  question  ?  To  ascertain  which  is  the 
more  advantageous  for  you,  restriction  or  liberty. 

I  believe  that  it  is  liberty  ;  they  believe  it  is  re- 
striction ;  it  is  for  each  one  to  prove  his  case. 

Was  it  necessary  to  insinuate  that  we  are  the 
agents  of  England  ? 

You  will  see  how  easy"  recrimination  would  be  on 
this  ground. 

We  are,  they  say,  agents  of  the  English,  because 
some  of  us  have  used  the  English  words  meeting^ 
free  trader  ! 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    LABORERS.  223 

And  do  not  thej  use  the  English  words  drawback 
and  budget  ? 

"We  imitate  Cobden  and  the  Eneclish  democracy  ! 

Do  not  they  parody  Bentinck  and  the  British 
aristocracy  ? 

We  borrow  from  perfidious  Albion  the  doctrine 
of  liberty. 

Do  not  they  borrow  from  her  the  sophisms  of 
protection  ? 

We  follow  the  commercial  impulse  of  Bordeaux 
and  the  South. 

Do  not  they  serve  the  greed  of  Lille,  and  the 
manufacturing  North  ? 

"We  favor  the  secret  designs  of  the  ministry, 
which  desires  to  turn  public  attention  away  from 
the  protective  policy. 

Do  not  they  favor  the  views  of  the  Custom- 
House  officers,  who  gain  more  than  anybody  else  by 
tills  protective  regime  ? 

So  you  see  that  if  we  did  not  ignore  this  war  of 
epithets,  we  should  not  be  without  weapons. 

But  that  is  not  the  point  in  issue. 

The  question  which  I  shall  not  lose  sight  of  is 
this  : 

Which  is  better  for  the  working -classes,  to  be  free 
or  not  to  be  free  to  jyur  chase  from,  abroad  f 

Workmen,  they  say  to  you,  "  If  you  are  free  to 
buy  from  abroad  these  things  which  you  now  make 
yo^irselves,  you  will  no  longer  make  them.     You 


224  SOl'IIISMS    OF    PKOTECTION. 

will  be  without  work,  without  wages,  and  without 
bread.  It  is  then  for  your  own  good  that  your  lib- 
erty be  restricted." 

This  objection  recurs  in  all  forms.  They  say,  for 
instance,  "  If  we  clothe  ourselves  with  English 
cloth,  if  we  make  our  ploughshares  with  English 
iron,  if  we  cut  our  bread  with  English  knives,  if 
we  wipe  our  hands  with  English  napkins,  what  will 
become  of  the  French  workmen — what  will  become 
of  the  national  lahor  V 

Tell  me.  workmen,  if  a  man  stood  on  the  pier  at 
Boulogne,  and  said  to  every  Englishman  m^io 
landed  :  If  you  will  give  me  those  English  boots, 
I  will  give  you  this  French  hat  ;  or,  if  you  will  let 
me  have  this  English  horse,  I  will  let  you  have  this 
French  carriage  ;  or.  Are  you  Milling  to  exchange 
this  Birmingham  machine  for  this  Paris  clock  ?  or, 
again.  Does  it  suit  you  to  barter  your  Newcastle 
coal  for  this  Champagne  wine  ?  I  ask  you  whether, 
supposing  this  man  makes  his  proposals  with 
average  judgment,  it  can  be  said  that  our  national 
làbo7',  taken  as  a  whole,  would  be  harmed  by  it  ? 

Would  it  be  more  so  if  there  were  twenty  of 
these  jDcople  offering  to  exchange  services  at  Bou- 
logne instead  of  one  ;  if  a  million  barters  were 
made  instead  of  four  ;  and  if  the  intervention  of 
merchants  and  money  was  called  on  to  facilitate 
them  and  nmltiply  them  indefinitely  ? 

Now,  let  oae  country  buy  of  another  at  whole- 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    LABORî:RS.  225 

«alo  to  sell  again  at  retail,  or  at  retail  to  pcU  again 
at  wholesale,  it  will  always  be  found,  if  the  matter 
is  followed  out  to  the  end,  that  commerce  consists 
of  inntual  harter  of  2>Toclucts  for  2>^'oduct-'^-)  of  ser- 
vices for  services.  If,  then,  one  harier  does  not 
injure  the  national  lahor,  since  it  implies  as  much 
national  lahor  given  as  foreign  lahor  receiveij.  a 
hundred  million  of  them  cannot  hurt  the  country. 

But,  you  will  say,  where  is  the  advantage  ?  The 
advantage  consists  in  making  a  better  use  of  the 
resources  of  each  country,  so  that  the  same  amount 
of  labor  gives  more  satisfaction  and  well-being 
everywhere. 

There  are  some  who  employ  singular  tactics 
against  you.  They  begin  by  admitting  the  superi- 
ority of  freedom  over  the  prohibitive  system, 
doubtless  in  order  that  they  may  not  have  to  de- 
fend themselves  on  that  ground. 

Xext  they  remark  that  in  going  from  one  system 
to  another  there  will  be  some  displacement  of  labor. 

Then  they  dilate  upon  the  sufferings  which, 
according  to  themselves,  this  displacement  must 
cause.  They  exaggerate  and  amplify  them  ;  they 
make  of  them  the  principal  subject  of  discussion  ; 
they  present  them  as  the  exclusive  and  definite  re- 
sult of  reform,  and  thus  try  to  enlist  you  under  the 
standard  of  monopoly. 

These  tactics  have  been  employed  in  the  service 
of  all  abuses,  and  I  must  frankly  admit  one  thing, 


226  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

that  it  always  embarrasses  even  tlie  friends  of 
those  reforms  wliich  are  most  useful  to  the  people. 
You  will  understand  why. 

"W  hen  an  abuse  exists,  everything  arranges  itself 
upon  it. 

Human  existences  connect  themselves  with  it, 
others  with  these,  then  still  others,  and  this  forms  a 
great  edifice. 

Do  you  raise  your  hand  against  it  ?  Each  one 
protests  ;  and  notice  this  particularly,  those  persons 
who  protest  always  seem  at  the  first  glance  to  b'^ 
right,  because  it  is  easier  to  show  the  disorder  which 
must  accompany  the  reform  than  the  order  which 
will  follow  it. 

The  friends  of  the  abuse  cite  particular  instances  ; 
they  name  the  persons  and  their  workmen  who  will 
be  disturbed,  while  the  poor  devil  of  a  reformer  can 
only  refer  to  the  general  good,  which  must  insensi- 
bly diffuse  itself  among  the  masses.  This  does  not 
liave  the  effect  which  the  other  has. 

Thus,  supposing  it  is  a  question  of  abolishing 
slavery.  "  Unhappy  people,"  they  say  to  the  col- 
ored men,  "  who  will  feed  you  ?  The  master  dis- 
tributes floggings,  but  he  also  distributes  rations." 

It  is  not  seen  that  it  is  not  the  master  who  feeds 
the  slave,  but  his  own  labor  which  feeds  both  him- 
self and  master. 

When  the  convents  of  Spain  were  reformed,  they 
said  to  the  beggars,  "  Where  will  you  find  broth 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    LABORERS.  227 

and  clothing  ?  The  Abbot  is  your  providence.  Is 
it  not  very  convenient  to  apply  to  him  ?" 

And  the  beggars  said  :  "  That  is  true.  If  the 
Abbot  goes,  we  see  what  we  lose,  but  we  do  not 
see  what  will  come  in  its  place." 

They  do  not  notice  that  if  the  convents  gave  alms 
they  lived  on  alms,  so  that  the  people  had  to  give 
them  more  than  they  could  receive  back. 

Thus,  workmen,  a  monopoly  imperceptibly  puts 
taxes  on  your  shoulders,  and  then  furnishes  you 
work  with  the  proceeds. 

Your  false  friends  say  to  you  :  If  there  was  no 
monopoly,  who  would  furnish  you  work  ? 

You  answer  :  This  is  true,  this  is  true.  The 
labor  which  the  monopolists  procure  us  is  certain. 
The  promises  of  liberty  are  uncertain. 

For  you  do  not  sec  that  they  first  take  money 
from  you,  and  then  give  you  back  ^.  jpart  of  it  for 
your  labor. 

Do  you  ask  who  will  furnish  you  work  ?  Why, 
you  will  give  each  other  work.  With  the  money 
which  will  no  longer  be  taken  from  you,  the  shoe- 
maker will  dress  better,  and  will  make  work  for 
the  tailor.  The  tailor  will  have  new  shoes  oftener, 
and  keep  the  shoemaker  employed.  So  it  will  be 
with  all  occupations. 

They  say  that  with  freedom  there  will  be  fewer 
workmen  in  the  mines  and  the  mills. 

I  do  not  believe  it.     But  if  this  does  happen,  it 


228  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

is  necessarily  because  there  will  be  more  labor 
freely  in  the  open  air. 

For  if,  as  they  say,  these  mines  and  spinning 
mills  can  be  sustained  only  by  the  aid  of  taxes  im- 
posed on  everybody  for  their  benefit,  these  taxes 
once  abolished,  everybody  will  be  more  comfortably 
off,  and  it  is  the  comfort  of  all  which  feeds  the 
labor  of  each  one. 

Excuse  mo  if  I  liui^er  at  this  demonstration.  I 
have  so  great  a  desire  to  see  you  on  the  side  of  lib- 
erty. 

In  France,  capital  invested  in  manufactures  yields, 
I  suppose,  five  per  cent  profit.  But  here  is  Mon- 
dor,  who  has  one  hundred  thousand  francs  invested 
in  a  manufactory,  on  which  he  loses  five  per  cent. 
The  difference  between  the  loss  and  gain  is  ten 
thousand  francs.  What  do  they  do  ?  They  assess 
upon  you  a  little  tax  of  ten  thousand  francs,  which 
is  given  to  Mondor,  and  you  do  not  notice  it,  for  it 
is  very  skilfully  disguised.  It  is  not  the  tax  gath. 
erer  who  comes  to  ask  you  your  part  of  the  tax,  but 
you  pay  it  to  Mondor,  the  manufacturer,  every  time 
you  buy  your  hatchets,  your  trowels,  and  your 
planes.  Then  they  say  to  you  :  If  you  do  not  pay 
this  tax,  Mondor  can  work  no  longer,  and  his  em- 
ployes, John  and  James,  will  be  without  la])or.  If 
this  tax  was  remitted,  would  you  not  get  work 
yourselves,  and  on  your  own  account  too  ? 

And,  then,  be  easy,  when  Mondor  has  no  longer 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    LABORERS.  229 

tliis  soft  method  of  oljtainiiig  his  profit  ])y  a  tax, 
he  will  use  his  wits  to  turn  liis  loss  into  a  gain,  and 
John  and  James  will  not  be  dismissed.  Then  all 
will  1)0  profit ybr  all. 

You  will  persist,  perhaps,  saying  :  "  Wc  under- 
stand that  after  the  reform  there  will  be  in  general 
more  work  than  before,  but  in  the  meanwhile  John 
and  James  will  be  on  the  street." 

To  which  J  answer  : 

First.  When  employment  changes  its  place 
only  to  increase,  the  man  who  has  two  arms  and  a 
heart  is  not  long  on  the  street. 

Second.  There  is  nothing  to  hinder  the  State 
from  reserving  some  of  its  funds  to  avoid  stoppages 
of  labor  in  the  transition,  which  I  do  not  myself 
believe  will  occur. 

Tliird.  Finnlly,  if  to  get  out  of  a  rut  and  get 
into  a  condition  which  is  better  for  all,  and  which 
is  certainly  more  just,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
brave  a  few  painful  moments,  the  workmen  ar». 
ready,  or  I  know  them  ill.  God  grant  that  it  may 
be  the  same  with  employers. 

Well,  because  yon  are  workmen,  are  you  not 
intelligent  and  moral  ?  It  seems  that  your  pre- 
tended friends  forget  it.  It  is  surprising  that  they 
discuss  such  a  subject  before  you,  speaking  of 
wages  and  interests,  without  once  pronouncing  the 
Vf orà  justice.  They  know,  however,  full  well  that 
the  situation  is  unjust.     Why,  then,  have  they  not 


230  SOPHISMS    OF    rROTP:CTION. 

the  courage  to  tell  you  so,  and  say,  "  Workmen, 
an  iniquity  prevails  in  the  country,  but  it  is  of 
advantage  to  you  and  it  must  be  sustained.  "  Why  ? 
Because  they  know  that  you  would  answer,  No. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  this  iniquity  is  profitable 
to  you.  Give  me  your  attention  for  a  few  moments, 
and  judge  for  yourselves. 

What  do  they  protect  in  France  ?  Articles  made 
by  great  manufacturers  in  great  establishments, 
iron,  cloth,  and  silks,  and  they  tell  you  that  this  is 
done  not  in  the  interest  of  the  employer,  but  in 
your  interest,  in  order  to  insure  you  wages. 

But  every  time  that  foreign  labor  presents  itself 
in  the  market  in  such  a  form  that  it  may  hurt  you^ 
but  not  the  great  manufacturers,  do  they  not  allow 
it  to  come  in  ? 

Are  there  not  in  Paris  thirty  thousand  Germans 
•who  make  clothes  and  shoes  ?  Why  are  they 
allowed  to  establish  themselves  at  your  side  when 
cloth  is  driven  away  ?  Because  the  cloth  is  made 
in  great  mills  owned  by  manufacturing  legislators. 
But  clothes  are  made  by  workmen  in  their  rooms. 

These  gentlemen  want  no  competition  in  the 
turning  of  wool  into  cloth,  because  that  is  their 
business  ;  but  when  it  comes  to  converting  cloth 
into  clothes,  they  admit  competition,  because  that 
is  your  trade. 

When  they  made  railroads  they  excluded  English 
rails,  but  they  imported  English  workmen  to  make 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    LABORERS.  231 

them.  Why  ?  It  is  very  simple  ;  because  English 
rails  compete  with  the  great  rolling-mills,  and  Eng- 
lish muscles  compete  only  with  yonrs. 

We  do  not  ask  tliem  to  keep  out  German  tailors 
and  English  laborers.  We  ask  that  cloth  and  rails 
may  be  allowed  to  come  in.  We  ask  justice  for 
all,  equality  before  the  law  for  all. 

It  is  a  mockery  to  tell  ns  that  these  Custom- 
House  restrictions  have  your  advantage  in  view. 
Tailors,  shoemakers,  carpenters,  millers,  masons, 
blacksmiths,  merchants,  grocers,  jewellers,  butchers, 
bakers,  and  dressmakers,  I  challenge  you  to  show 
me  a  single  instance  ir  Vvdiich  restriction  profits  you, 
and  if  you  wish,  I  will  point  out  four  where  it 
hurts  you. 

And  after  all,  just  see  how  much  of  the  appear- 
ance of  truth  this  self-denial,  which  your  journals 
attribute  to  the  monopolists,  has. 

I  believe  that  we  can  call  that  the  natural  rate 
of  .wages  which  would  establish  itself  nahirally  if 
there  were  freedom  of  trade.  Then,  when  they 
tell  you  that  restriction  is  for  your  benefit,  it  is  as  if 
they  told  you  that  it  added  a  surplus  to  your  natu- 
ral wages.  Now,  an  extra  natural  surplus  of 
wages  must  be  taken  from  somewhere  ;  it  does  not 
fall  from  the  moon  ;  it  must  be  taken  from  those 
who  pay  it. 

You  are  then  brought  to  this  conclusion,  that, 
according  to  your  pretended  friends,  the  protective 


232  SOPHISMS    OF    TROTECTION. 

system  has  hcen  created  and  hronii^lit  into  the  worM 
in  order  that  capitalists  miglit  be  sacrificed  to  labor- 
ers ! 

Tell  me,  is  that  probal)]e  ? 

"Where  is  your  place  in  the  Chamber  of  Peers  ? 
When  did  you  sit  at  the  Palais  Bourbon?  Who 
has  consulted  you  ?  Whence  came  this  idea  of  es- 
tablishing the  protective  system  ? 

I  hear  your  answer  :  We  did  not  establish  it. 
We  are  neither  Peers  nor  Deputies,  nor  Counsellors 
of  State.     The  capitalists  have  done  it. 

By  heavens,  they  were  in  a  delectable  mood  that 
day.  What  !  the  capitalists  made  this  law  ;  they 
established  the  prohibitive  system,  so  that  you  la- 
borers should  make  profits  at  their  expense  ! 

But  here  is  something  stranger  still. 

How  is  it  that  your  pretended  friends,  who  spe?k 
to  you  novv  of  the  goodness,  generosity,  and  self- 
denial  of  capitalists,  constantly  express  regret  that 
you  do  not  enjoy  your  political  rights  ?  From 
their  point  of  view,  what  could  you  do  with  them  ? 
The  capitalists  have  the  monopoly,  of  legislation, 
it  is  true.  Thanks  to  this  monopoly  they  have 
granted  themselves  the  monopoly  of  iron,  cloth, 
coal,  wood,  and  meat,  w^hich  is  also  true.  But  now 
your  pretended  friends  say  that  the  capitalists,  in 
acting  thus,  have  stripped  themselves,  without 
being  obliged  to  do  it,  to  enrich  you  without  your 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    LABORERS.  233 

being  entitled  to  it.  Surely,  if  you  were  electors 
and  deputies,  you  could  not  manage  your  affairs 
better  ;  you  would  not  even  manage  them  as  well. 

If  the  industrial  organization  wliich  rules  us  is 
made  in  your  interest,  it  is  a  perfidy  to  demand 
political  rights  for  you  ;  for  these  democrats  of  a 
new  species  can  never  get  out  of  this  dilemma  ;  the 
Jaw,  made  by  the  present  law-makers,  gives  you 
more,  or  gives  you  less,  than  your  natural  wages. 
If  it  gives  you  less,  they  deceive  you  in  inviting 
you  to  support  it.  If  it  gives  you  more,  they 
deceive  you  again  by  calling  on  you  to  claim  politi- 
cal rights,  when  those  who  now  exercise  them, 
make  sacrifices  for  you  which  you,  in  your  honesty, 
could  not  yourselves  vote. 

Workingmen,  God  forbid  that  the  effect  of  this 
article  should  be  to  cast  in  your  hearts  the  germs 
of  irritation  against  the  rich.  If  mistaken  interests 
still  support  monopoly,  let  us  not  forget  that  it  has 
its  root  in  errors,  which  are  conmion  to  capitalists 
and  workmen.  Then,  far  from  laboring  to  excite 
them  against  one  another,  let  us  strive  to  bring 
them  together.  What  must  be  done  to  accomplish 
this  ?  If  it  is  true  that  the  natural  social  tenden- 
cies aid  in  effacing  inequality  among  men,  all  we 
Iiave  to  do  to  let  those  tendencies  act  is  to  remove 
the  artificial  obstructions  which  interfere  with  their 
operation,    and     allow    the   relations    of   different 


234  SOl'llISMS    OF    PROTPXTION. 

classes  to  establish  themselves  on   the  principle  of 
justice,   which,  to  my  mind,   is  the    principle  of 

FKEEDOM. 


VII. 
A    CHINESE    STORT. 

They  exclaim  against  the  greed  and  the  selfish- 
ness of  the  age  ! 

Open  the  thousand  books,  the  thousand  papers, 
the  thousand  pamphlets,  which  the  Parisian  presses 
throw  out  every  day  on  the  country  ;  is  not  all  this 
the  work  of  little  saints  ? 

What  spirit  in  the  painting  of  the  vices  of  the 
time  !  What  touching  tenderness  for  the  masses  ! 
With  what  liberality  they  invite  the  rich  to  divide 
with  the  poor,  or  the  poor  to  divide  with  the  rich  ! 
How  many  plans  of  social  reform,  social  improve- 
ment, and  social  organization  !  Does  not  even  the 
weakest  writer  devote  himself  to  the  well-being  of 
the  laboring  classes  ?  All  that  is  required  is  to 
advance  them  a  little  money  to  givo  them  time  to 
attend  to  their  humanitarian  pursuits. 

There  is  nothing  which  does  not  assume  to  aid 
in  the  well-being  and  moral  advancement  of  the 
people — nothing,  not  even  the  Custom-House. 
You  believe  that  it  is  a  tax  machine,  like  a  duty  or 


A    CHINESE    STORY.  235 

a  toll  at  tile  end  of  a  bridge  ?  Not  at  all.  It  is  an 
essentially  civilizing,  fraternizing,  and  equalizing 
institution.  What  would  you  have  ?  It  is  the 
fashion.  It  is  necessary  to  put  or  affect  to  put  feel- 
ing or  sentimentality  everywhere,  even  in  the  cure 
of  all  troubles. 

But  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Custom-House 
orgam'zation  has  a  singular  way  of  going  to  work  to 
realize  these  philanthropic  aspirations. 

It  puts  on  foot  an  array  of  collectors,  assistant 
collectors,  inspectors,  assistant  inspectors,  cashiers, 
accountants,  receivers,  clerks,  supernumeraries,  tide- 
waiters,  and  all  this  in  order  to  exercise  on  the  in- 
dustry of  the  peo23le  that  negative  action  which  is 
summed  up  in  the  word  to  prevent. 

Observe  that  T  do  not  say  to  tax,  but  really  to 
yrevent. 

And  to  prevent.,  not  acts  reproved  by  morality, 
or  opposed  to  public  order,  but  transactions  which 
are  innocent,  and  which  they  have  even  admitted 
are  favorable  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  nations. 

However,  humanity  is  so  flexible  and  supple  that, 
in  one  way  or  another,  it  always  overcomes  these 
attempts  at  prevention. 

It  is  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  labor.  If 
people  are  kept  from  getting  their  food  from 
abroad  they  produce  it  at  home.  It  is  more  labori- 
ous, but  they  must  live.  If  they  are  kept  from 
pajssing  along  the  valley,  they  must  climb  the  moun- 


236  SOI'IIISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

tains.  It  is  longer,  but  tlio  point  of  destination 
must  be  reached. 

Tills  is  sad,  but  anuisino;.  When  the  law  has 
thus  created  a  certain  amount  of  obstacles,  and 
when,  to  overcome  them,  humanity  has  diverted  a 
corresponding  amount  of  labor,  you  are  no  longer 
allowed  to  call  for  the  reform  of  the  law  ;  for,  if 
you  point  out  the  obstacle^  f^icy  show  you  the  labor 
which  it  brings  into  play  ;  and  if  you  say  this  is  not 
labor  created  but  diverted^  they  answer  you  as  does 
the  Esprit  Piiblic — "  The  impoverishing  only  is 
certain  and  immediate  ;  as  for  the  enriching,  it  is 
more  than  problematical." 

This  recalls  to  me  a  Chinese  story,  which  I  will 
tell  you. 

There  were  in  China  two  great  cities,  Tchin  and 
Tchan.  A  magnificent  canal  connected  them. 
The  Emperor  thought  lit  to  have  immense  masses 
of  rock  thrown  into  it,  to  make  it  useless. 

Seeing  this,  Kouang,  his  first  Mandarin,  said  to 
liim  :  '"  Son  of  Heaven,  you  make  a  mistake." 
To  which  the  Emperor  replied  :  "  Kouang,  you 
are  foolish." 

You  understand,  of  course,  that  I  give  but  the 
substance  of  the  dialogue. 

At  the  end  of  three  moons  the  Celestial  Emperor 
had  the  Mandarin  brought,  and  said  to  him  : 
''  Kouang,  look." 

And  Kouang,  opening  his  eyes,  looked. 


A    CHINESE    STORY.  237 

He  saw  at  a  certain  distance  fi'om  the  canal  a 
multitude  of  men  lahoring.  Some  excavated,  some 
filled  up,  some  levelled,  ami  some  laid  pavement, 
nnd  tlic  Mandarin,  who  was  very  learned,  tliought 
to  himself  :  They  are  makinj^  a  road. 

At  the  end  of  three  more  moons,  the  Emperor, 
having  called  Kouang,  said  to  him  :   "  Look." 

And  Kouang  looked. 

And  he  saw  that  the  road  was  made;  and  he 
noticed  that  at  various  points  inns  were  building. 
A  medley  of  foot  passengers,  carriages,  and  palan- 
quins went  and  came,  and  innumerable  Chinese,  op- 
pressed l)y  fatigue,  carried  back  and  forth  heavy 
burdens  from  Tchin  to  Tchan,  and  from  Tchan  to 
Tcliin,  and  Kouang  said  :  It  is  the  destruction  of 
the  canal  which  has  given  labor  to  these  poDr  peo- 
ple. But  it  did  not  occur  to  h^'m  that  this  labor 
was  diverted  from  other  employments. 

Then  more  moons  passed,  and  the  Emperor  said 
to  Kouang  :   "  Look." 

And  Kouang  looked. 

lie  saw  that  the  inns  were  always  full  of  travellers, 
and  that  tliey  being  hungry,  there  liad  sprung  up, 
near  by,  the  shops  of  butchers,  bakers,  charcoal 
dealers,  and  Ijird's-nest  sellers.  Since  these  worthy 
men  could  not  go  naked,  tailors,  shoemakers,  and 
umbrella  and  fan  dealers  had  settled  there,  and  as 
they  do  not  sleep  in  the  open  air,  even  in  the  Ce- 
lestial  Empire,   carpenters,   masons,  and   thatchers 


238  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

congregated  there.  Then  came  police  officers, 
judges,  and  fakirs  ;  in  a  word,  around  each  stop- 
ping place  there  grew  up  a  city  with  its  suburbs. 

Said  the  Emperor  to  Kouang  :  '*  What  do  you 
think  of  this  ?" 

And  Konang  replied  :  "I  could  never  have 
believed  that  the  destruction  of  a  canal  could  create 
so  much  labor  for  the  people."  For  he  did  not 
think  that  it  was  not  labor  created,  but  diverted  / 
tliat  travellers  ate  when  they  went  by  the  canal  just 
as  much  as  they  did  when  they  were  forced  to  go 
by  the  road. 

However,  to  the  great  astonishment  of  the  Chi- 
nese, the  Emperor  died,  and  this  Son  of  Heaven 
was  committed  to  earth. 

His  successors  sent  for  Kouang,  and  said  to  him  : 
*'  Clean  out  the  canal." 

And  Kouang  said  to  the  new  Emperor  :  "  Son  of 
Heaven,  you  are  doing  wrong." 

And  the  Emperor  replied  :  "  Kouang,  you  are 
foolish." 

But  Kouang  persisted  and  said  :  "  My  Lord,  what 
Is  your  object  ?" 

"  My  object,"  said  the  Emperor,  "  is  to  facilitate 
the  movement  of  men  and  things  between  Tcliin 
and  Tclian  ;  to  make  transportation  less  expensive, 
so  that  the  people  may  have  tea  and  clothes  more 
cheaply.  '  ' 

But  Kouang  was  in  readiness.     He  had  received, 


A   CHINESE    STORY.  239 

tlte  evening  before,  some  numbers  of  the  Moniteur 
Industriel^  a  Chinese  paper.  Knowing  his  lesson  by 
heart,  lie  asked  permission  to  answer,  and,  liaving 
obtained  it,  after  striking  his  forehead  nine  times 
against  the  floor,  he  said  :  "  My  Lord,  you  try,  by 
facilitating  transportation,  to  reduce  the  price  of 
articles  of  consumption,  in  order  to  bring  them 
within  the  reach  of  the  people  ;  and  to  do  this  you 
begin  by  making  them  lose  all  the  labor  whicli  was 
created  by  the  destruction  of  the  canal.  Sire,  in 
political  economy,  absolute  cheapness" — 

The  Emperor.  "  I  believe  that  you  are  reciting 
something." 

Kouang.  "  That  is  true,  and  it  would  be  more 
convenient  for  me  to  read." 

Having  unfolded  the  Eapr'it  Public^  he  read  : 
"  In  political  economy  the  absolute  cheapness  of 
articles  of  consumption  is  but  a  secondary  ques- 
tion. The  problem  lies  in  the  equilibrium  of  the 
price  of  labor  and  that  of  the  articles  necessary  to 
existence.  The  abundance  of  labor  is  the  wealth 
of  nations,  and  the  best  economic  system  is  that 
which  furnishes  them  the  greatest  possible  amount 
of  labor.  Do  not  ask  whether  it  is  better  to  pay 
four  or  eight  cents  cash  for  a  cup  of  tea,  or  live  or 
ten  shillings  for  a  shirt.  These  are  puerilities  un- 
worthy of  a  serious  mind.  No  one  denies  your 
proposition.  The  question  is,  whether  it  is  better 
to  pay  more  for  an  article,  and  to  have,  through  the 


240  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

abundance  and  price  of  labor,  more  means  of  ac- 
quiring it,  or  "whether  it  is  better  to  impoverish  the 
sources  of  labor,  to  diminish  tlie  mass  of  national 
production,  and  to  transport  articles  of  consumption 
by  canals,  more  cheaply  it  is  true,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  to  deprive  a  portion  of  our  laborers  of  the 
power  to  buy  them,  even  at  these  reduced  prices." 

The  Emperor  not  being  altogether  convinced, 
Kouang  said  to  liiin  :  "  My  Lord,  be  pleased  to 
wait.  1  have  the  Moniteur  Industrial  to  quote 
from." 

But  the  Emperor  said  :  "I  do  not  need  your 
Chinese  newspapers  to  tell  me  that  to  create  ohsta- 
cles  is  to  turn  labor  in  that  direction.  Yet  that  is 
not  my  mission.  Come,  let  us  clear  out  the  canal, 
and  then  we  will  reform  the  tariff." 

Kouang  went  away  plucking  out  his  beard,  and 
crying  :  Oh,  Fo  !  Oh,  Pe  !  Oh,  Le  !  and  all  the 
monosyllabic  and  circumflex  gods  of  Cathay,  take 
pity  on  your  people  ;  for  there  has  come  to  us  an 
Emperor  of  the  English  school^  and  I  see  very 
plainly  that,  in  a  little  while,  we  shall  be  in  want 
of  everything,  since  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  us 
to  do  anything. 


POST    HOC,   ERGO    I'KOPTEli    HOC.  241 

VIII. 

POST    HOC,    ERGO     PROPTER    HOC. 

"After  tliis,  therefore  on  account  of  this. " 
The  most  com'nion  and  tlie  most  false  of  arguments. 

Real  suffering  exists  in  England. 

This  occurrence  follows  two  others  : 

First.   The  reduction  of  the  tariff. 

Second.   The  loss  of  two  consecutive  harvests. 

To  which  of  these  last  two  circumstances  is  the 
first  to  be  attributed  ? 

The  protectionists  do  not  fail  to  exclaim  :  "  It  is 
this  cursed  freedom  which  does  all  the  mischief. 
It  promised  us  wonders  and  marvels  ;  we  welcomed 
it,  and  now  the  manufactories  stop  and  the  j)eople 
suffer." 

Commercial  freedom  distril)utes,  in  the  most  uni- 
form and  equitable  manner,  the  fi'uits  which  Provi- 
dence grants  to  the  labor  of  man.  If  these  fruits 
are  partially  destroyed  by  any  misfortune,  it  none 
the  less  looks  after  the  fair  distribution  of  what 
remains.  Men  are  not  as  well  provided  for,  of 
course,  but  shah  we  blame  freedom  or  the  Ixad 
harvest  ? 

Freedom  rests  on  the  same  principle  as  insurance. 
"When  a  loss  happens,  it  divides,  among  a  great 
many  people,  and  a  great  number  of  years,  evils 


2-1-2  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

which  without  it  would  accunmhite  on  one  nation 
and  one  season.  But  have  they  ever  thought  of 
saying  that  fire  was  no  longer  a  scourge,  since  there 
were  insurance  companies  ? 

In  1842,  '43,  and  '44,  the  reduction  of  taxes 
began  in  England.  At  the  same  time  the  harvests 
were  very  abundant,  and  we  can  justly  believe  that 
these  two  circumstances  had  much  to  do  with  the 
wonderful  prosperity  shown  by  that  country  during 
that  period. 

In  1845  the  harvest  was  bad,  and  in  1840  it  was 
still  worse.  Breadstuff  s  grew  dear,  the  people  spent 
their  money  for  food,  and  used  less  of  other  articles. 
There  was  a  diminished  demand  for  clothing  ;  the 
manufactories  were  not  so  busy,  and  wages  showed 
a  declining  tendency.  Happily,  in  the  same  year, 
the  restrictive  barriers  were  again  lowered,  and  an 
enormous  quantity  of  food  Avas  enabled  to  reach 
the  English  market.  If  it  had  not  been  for  this, 
it  is  almost  certain  that  a  terrible  revolution  would 
now  fill  Great  Britain  with  blood. 

Yet  they  make  freedom  chargeable  with  disasters, 
which  it  prevents  and  remedies,  at  least  in  part. 

A  poor  leper  lived  in  solitude.  No  one  would 
touch  what  he  had  contaminated.  Compelled  to  do 
everything  for  himself,  he  dragged  out  a  miserable 
existence.  A  great  physician  cui'ed  him.  Here 
was  our  hermit  in  full  possession  of  the  freedom  of 
exchange.     What  a  beautiful  prospect  opened  before 


ROBBEKY    BY    BOUNTIES.  243 

him  !  He  took  pleasure  in  calculating  the  advan- 
tages whicli,  thanks  to  his  connection  with  otlier 
men,  he  could  draw  from  his  vigorous  arms.  Un- 
luckily, he  broke  both  of  them.  Alas  !  his  fate 
was  most  miserable.  The  journalists  of  that 
country,  witnessing  his  misfortune,  said  :  "  See  to 
what  misery  this  ability  to  exchange  has  reduced 
him  !  Really,  he  was  less  to  be  pitied  when  he 
lived  alone." 

"  What  !'  '  said  the  physician  :  "do  not  you  con- 
sider his  two  broken  arms  ?  Do  not  they  form  a 
part  of  his  sad  destiny  ?  His  misfortune  is  to  have 
lost  his  arms,  and  i  ot  to  have  been  cured  of  lep- 
rosy. He  would  be  much  more  to  be  pitied  if  he 
was  both  maimed  and  a  leper.  " 

Post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc  y  do  not  trust  this 
sophism. 


IX. 

EOBBERY   BY   BOUNTIES". 

They  find  my  little  book  of  Sophisms  too  theoreti- 
cal, scientific,  and  metaphysical.  Very  well.  Let 
us  try  a  trivial,  connnonplace,  and,  if  necessary, 
coarse  stjde.  Convinced  that  the  public  is  duped 
in  the  matter  of  protection,  I  have  desired  to  prove 
it.  But  the  public  wishes  to  be  shouted  at.  TJien 
let  us  cry  out  : 


244  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTPXTION. 

"  Midas,  King  Midas,  has  asses'  ears  !" 

An  out])nrst  of  frankness  often  acconiplislies 
more  tlian  the  poUtest  circumlocution. 

To  tell  the  truth,  my  good  people,  they  are  rohhing 
you.     It  is  harsh,  hut  it  is  true. 

Tlie  words  robbery,  to  rob,  robber, ^W^^qqxq.  in  very 
bad  taste  to  many  people.  I  say  to  tliem  as  Har- 
pagon did  to  Elise,  Is  it  the  word  or  the  thing  that 
alarms  you  ? 

"Whoever  has  fraudulently  taken  that  wliich  does 
not  belong  to  him  is  guilty  of  robbery.  {Penal 
Code,  Art.  379.) 

To  7'ob  :  To  take  furtively,  or  by  force.  {Diction^ 
ary  of  the  Academy .) 

Robber  :  He  who  takes  more  than  his  due.  [The 
same.  ) 

Now,  does  not  the  monopolist,  wlio,  l)y  a  law  of 
his  own  making,  obliges  me  to  pay  him  twenty 
francs  for  an  article  which  I  can  get  elsewhere  for 
fifteen,  take  from  me  fraudulently  five  francs,  which 
belong  to  me  ? 

Does  he  not  take  it  furtively,  or  by  force  ? 

Does  he  not  require  of  me  more  than  his 
due? 

He  carries  off,  he  takes,  he  demands,  they  will 
say,  but  not  furtively  or  by  force,  which  are  the 
characteristics  of  robbery. 

When  our  tax  levy  is  burdened  with  five  francs 
for  the  bounty  which  this  monopolist  carries  off. 


ROBBERY    BY    BOUNTIES.  245 

takes,  or  deinaiids,  what  can  I)c  more  furtive^  since 
so  few  of  us  suspect  it  ?  And  for  those  wlio  are 
not  deceived,  wliat  can  be  wiora  forced^  since,  at  the 
first  refusal  to  pay,  the  officer  is  at  our  doors  ? 

Still,  let  the  monopolists  reassure  themselves. 
These  robberies,  by  means  of  bounties  or  tariffs, 
even  if  they  do  violate  equity  as  much  as  robbery, 
do  not  break  the  law  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  are 
perpetrated  through  the  law.  They  are  all  the 
worse  for  this,  but  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
ciHTïiinaUjustice. 

Besides,  willy-nilly,  we  are  all  robbers  and  robbed 
in  the  business.  Though  the  author  of  this  book 
cries  stop  thief.,  when  he  buys,  others  can  cry  the 
same  after  him,  Avhen  he  sells.  If  he  differs  from 
many  of  his  countrymen,  it  is  only  in  this  :  he 
knows  that  he  loses  by  this  game  more  than  he 
gains,  and  they  do  not  ;  if  they  did  know  it,  the 
game  would  soon  cease. 

Xor  do  I  boast  of  having  first  given  this  thing 
its  true  name.  More  than  sixty  years  ago,  Adam 
Smith  said  : 

"  When  manufacturers  meet  it  may  be  expected 
that  a  conspiracy  will  be  planned  against  the  pock- 
ets of  the  public.  "  Can  we  be  astonished  at  this 
when  the  public  pay  no  attention  to  it  ? 

An  assembly  of  manufacturers  deliberate  offi- 
cially under  the  name  of  Industrial  League.  What 
goes  on  there,  and  what  is  decided  upon  ? 


2-16  SOJ'UISMS    OF    rKOTECTIOX. 

I  give  a  very  brief  suinuiary  of  the  proceedings 
of  one  meeting  : 

"  A  Ship-builder.  Our  mercantile  marine  is  at 
the  last  gasp  (warlii<;e  digression).  It  is  not  surpris- 
ing. I  cannot  build  Avithout  iron.  I  can  get  it 
at  ten  francs  'at  Uie  woi'hV^  market  j  but,  through 
the  law,  the  managers  of  the  French  forges  compel 
me  to  pay  them  fifteen  francs.  Thus  they  take 
five  francs  from  me.  I  ask  freedom  to  buy  where 
I  please. 

"  An  iron  Manufacturer.  In  the  worleVs  niarliet 
I  can  obtain  transportation  for  twenty  francs.  The 
ship-builder,  through  the  law,  requires  thirty.  Thus 
he  teikes  ten  francs  from  me.  He  plunders  me  ;  I 
plunder  him.     It  is  all  for  the  best. 

"  A  Public  Official.  The  conclusion  of  the  ship- 
builder's argument  is  highly  imprudent.  Oh,  let 
us  cultiviate  the  touching  union  which  makes  our 
strength  ;  if  we  relax  an  iota  from  the  theory  of 
protection,  good-by  to  the  whole  of  it. 

"  The  Ship-builder.  But,  for  us,  protection  is  a 
failure.     I  repeat  that  the  shipping  is  nearly  gone. 

"  A  Sailor.  Very  well,  let  us  raise  the  discrimi- 
nating duties  against  goods  imported  in  foreign  bot- 
toms, and  let  the  ship-builder,  who  now  takes  thirty 
francs  from  the  public,  hereafter  take  forty. 

"  A  Minister.  The  government  will  push  to  its 
extreme  limits  the  admirable  mechanism  of  these 


KOBBERY    BY   BOUNTIES.  247 

discriminating  duties,  but  I  fear  that  it  will  not 
answer  tlie  purpose. 

"  A  Government  Employé.  You  seem  to  be 
bothered  about  a  very  little  matter.  Is  there  any 
safety  but  in  the  bounty  ?  If  the  consumer  is  will- 
ing, the  tax-payer  is  no  less  so.  Let  us  pile  on  the 
taxes,  and  let  the  ship-builder  be  satisfied.  I  pro- 
pose a  bounty  of  five  francs,  to  be  taken  from  the 
public  revenues,  to  ])e  paid  to  the  ship  builder  for 
each  (piintal  of  iron  that  he  uses. 

"  Several  Voices.   Seconded,  seconded. 

"  A  Farmer.  I  want  a  bounty  of  three  francs 
for  each  bushel  of  wheat. 

"  A  Weaver.  And  I  two  francs  for  each  yard  of 
cloth. 

"  The  Presiding  Officer.  That  is  understood. 
Our  meeting  will  have  originated  the  system  of 
drawhacks,  and  it  will  be  its  eternal  glory.  What 
bmncli  of  manufacturing  can  lose  hereafter,  when 
we  have  two  so  simple  means  of  turning  losses  into 
gains — the  tariff  and  drawhacks.  The  meeting  is 
adjourned." 

Some  supernatural  vision  must  have  shown  me 
in  a  dream  the  coming  appearance  of  the  hounty 
(who  knows  if  I  did  not  suggest  the  thought  to  M. 
Du  pin  ?)  when  some  months  ago  I  wrote  the  fol- 
lowing words  : 

"  It  seems  evident  to  me  that  protection,  without 


248  SOPHISMS    OF    TROTECTION. 

cliangiiii";  its  nature  or  effects,  mi^ht  take  the  forn\ 
of  a  direct  tax  levied  hy  the  State,  and  distributed 
in  indemnifying  bounties  to  privileged  manufact- 
urers.''^ 

And  after  having  compared  protective  duties  with 
the  bounty  : 

"  1  frankly  avow  my  preference  for  the  latter 
system  ;  it  seems  to  me  more  just,  more  economical, 
and  more  truthful.  More  just,  because  if  society 
wishes  to  give  gratuities  to  some  of  its  members, 
all  should  contribute  ;  more  economical,  because  it 
would  save  much  of  the  expense  of  collection, 
and  do  away  with  many  obstacles  ;  and,  finally, 
more  truthful,  because  the  public  could  see  the 
operation  plainly,  and  would  know  what  was  done." 

Since  the  opportunity  is  so  kindly  offered  us,  let 
US  study  this  roljhery  hy  hou7ities.  What  is  said  of 
it  will  also  apply  to  rohbe?y  Tjy  tariff,  and  as  it  is  a 
little  better  disguised,  the  direct  will  enable  us  to 
understand  the  indirect,  cheating.  Thus  the  mind 
proceeds  from  the  simple  to  the  complex. 

But  is  there  no  simpler  variety  of  robbery  ?  Cer- 
tainly, there  is  highway  rohhery,  and  all  it  needs  is 
to  be  legalized,  or,  as  they  say  nowadays,  organized. 

I  once  read  the  following  in  somebody's  travels  : 

"  When  we  reached  the  Kingdom  of  A we 

found  all  industrial  pursuits  suffering.  Agriculture 
groaned,  manufactures  complained,  commerce  mur- 
nmred,  the  navy  growled,  and  the  government  did 


ROBBERY   BY    BOUNTIES.  249 

not  know  wlioni  to  listen  to.  At  first  it  thonglit 
of  taxing  nil  tlic  discontented,  and  of  dividing 
among  tliem  the  proceeds  of  these  taxes  after  hav- 
ing taken  its  share  ;  which  would  have  heen  like 
the  method  of  managing  lotteries  in  our  dear  Spain. 
There  arc  a  thousand  of  you  ;  the  State  takes  a 
dollar  from  each  one,  cimningly  steals  two  hundred 
and  fifty,  and  then  divides  up  seven  hundred  and 
fifty,  in  greater  or  smaller  sums,  among  the  players. 
The  worthy  Hidalgo,  who  has  received  three  quar- 
ters of  a  dollar,  forgetting  that  he  has  spent  a 
whole  one,  is  wild  with  joy,  and  runs  to  spend  his 
shillings  at  the  tavern.  Something  like  this  once 
happened  in  France.     Barbarous  as  the  country  of 

A w^as,  however,  the  government  did  not  trust 

the  stupidity  of  the  inhabitants  enough  to  make 
them  accept  such  singular  protection,  and  hence 
this  was  what  it  devised  : 

"  The  country  was  intersected  with  roads.  The 
government  had  them  measured  exactly,  and  then 
said  to  the  farmers,  '  All  that  you  can  steal  from 
travellers  between  these  boundaries  is  yours  ;  let  it 
serve  you  as  a  houiity^  a  protection,  and  an  encour- 
agement.' It  afterward  assigned  to  each  manufact- 
urer and  each  ship-builder,  a  bit  of  road  to  work 
up,  according  to  this  formula  : 

Dono  tibi  et  concedo, 
Yirtutem  et  jmissantiam,   , 


250  SOPHISMS    OF    I'KOTECTION. 

Tiobbaiuli, 
Pillageandi, 
Steiilandi, 
Chcataiidi, 
Et  Swindlandi, 
Inipnnc  per  totaiii  istam, 
Viam. 

"  jSTow  it  lias  come  to  pass  tliat  tlic  natives  of  the 

Kingdom  of  A arc  so   familiarized   with  tliis 

régime,  and  so  accustomed  to  think  only  of  what 
they  steal,  and  not  of  what  is  stolen  from  them,  so 
habituated  to  look  at  pillage  but  from  the  pillager's 
point  of  view,  that  they  consider  the  sum  of  all 
these  private  robberies  as  a  national  J^^^fi^i  ^"^ 
refuse  to  give  up  a  system  of  protection  without 
which,  they  say,  no  branch  of  industry  can  live." 

Do  you  say,  it  is  not  possible  that  an  entire 
nation  could  see  an  increase  of  riches  where  the 
inhabitants  plundered  one  another  ? 

Why  not  ?  We  have  this  belief  in  France,  and 
every  day  we  organize  and  practise  reciprocal  roh- 
hery  under  the  name  of  bounties  and  protective 
tariffs. 

Let  us  exaggerate  nothing,  however  ;  let  us  con- 
cede that  as  far  as  the  7)iode  of  collection  and  the 
collateral  circumstances  are  concerned,  the  system 

m  the  Kingdom  of  A may  be  worse  thau  ours  ; 

but  let  us  say,  also,  that   as  far  as  principles  and 


ROBBERY    BY    BOUNTIES  251 

necessary  results  are  concerned,  tlicre  is  not  an 
atom  of  difference  between  these  two  kinds  of 
robbery  legally  organized  to  eke  ont  the  profits  of 
industry. 

Observe,  that  if  highway  robbery  j)resents  some 
diificnlties  of  execution,  it  has  also  certain  advan- 
tages which  are  not  found  in  the  tariff'  rohhery. 

For  instance  :  An  eqnitable  division  can  be 
made  between  all  the  plunderers.  It  is  not  thus 
with  tariffs.  They  are  by  nature  impotent  to  pro- 
tect certain  classes  of  society,  such  as  artisans, 
merchants,  literary  men,  lawyers,  soldiers,  etc.,  etc. 

It  is  true  that  hounty  robbery  allows  of  infinite 
subdivisions,  and  in  this  respect  does  not  yield  in 
perfection  to  higlivmy  7'obbery,  l)ut  on  the  other  liand 
it  often  leads  to  results  which  are  so  odd  and  fool- 
ish, that  the  natives  of  the  Kingdom  of  A may 

laugh  at  it  with  great  reason. 

That  which  the  plundered  party  loses  in  liighway 
robbery  is  gained  by  the  robber.  The  article  stolen 
remains,  at  least,  in  the  country.  But  under  the 
dominion  of  bounty  robbery,  that  which  the  duty 
takes  from  the  French  is  often  given  to  the  Chinese, 
the  Hottentots,  Cafiirs,  and.  Algonquins,  as  follows  : 

A  piece  of  cloth  is  worth  a  hundred  francs  at 
Bordeaux.  It  is  impossible  to  sell  it  below  that 
without  loss.  It  is  impossible  to  sell  it  for  more 
than  that,  for  the  competition  between  mercliants 
forbids.     Under  these  circumstances,  if  a  French- 


252  SOPHISMS    OF    I>KOTi:CTION. 

man  desires  to  ]my  the  cloth,  lie  must  pay  a 
hundred /"rancs,  or  do  without  it.  But  if  an  Eng- 
lishman comes,  the  government  interferes,  and  says 
to  the  merchant  :  "  Sell  your  cloth,  and  I  will  make 
the  tax -payers  give  yon  twenty  francs  (through  the 
openition  of  the  drawhack).  The  merchant,  who 
wants,  and  can  get,  but  one  hundred  francs  for  his 
cloth,  delivers  it  to  the  ETiglishman  for  eighty 
francs.  This  sum  added  to  the  twenty  francs,  the 
product  of  the  hounty  robbery,  makes  up  his  price. 
It  is  then  precisely  as  if  the  tax-payers  had  given 
twenty  francs  to  the  Englishman,  on  condition  that 
he  wonld  buy  French  cloth  at  twenty  francs  below 
the  cost  of  manufacture — at  twenty  francs  below 
what  it  costs  us.  Then  bounty  robbery  has  this 
peculiarity,  that  the  robbed  are  inhabitants  of  the 
country  which  allows  it,  and  the  robbers  arc  spread 
over  the  face  of  the  globe. 

It  is  truly  wonderful  that  they  should  persist  in 
holding  this  proposition  to  have  been  demonstrated  : 
All  that  the  indimdual  robs  from  the  mass  is  a 
general  gain.  Perpetual  motion,  the  philosopher's 
stone,  and  the  squaring  of  the  circle,  are  sunk  in 
oblivion  ;  but  the  theory  of  progress  by  robbery  is 
still  held  in  honor.  A  priori,,  however,  one  might 
have  supposed  that  it  would  be  the  shortest  lived 
of  all  these  follies. 

Some  say  to  us  :  You  are,  then,  partisans  of  the 
let  alone  policy  ?  economists  of  the  superannuated 


BOBBERY   BY    BOUNTIES,  253 

school  of  tlic  Siuitlis  and  the  Says  ?  You  do  not 
desire  the  or<j<uihat'wn  ofUdjor  ?  \V  li  j,  i>^eiitleuien, 
organize  labor  as  niucli  as  you  please,  but  we  M'ill 
watch  to  see  that  you  do  not  organize  robbery. 

Others  say,  hou.ntles,  tariffs,  all  these  things  may 
have  been  overdone.  We  must  use,  without  abus- 
ing theui.  A  wise  liberty,  combined  with  moderate 
protection,  is  what  serious  and  practical  men  claim. 
Let  us  beware  of  ahsolute  principles.  This  is  exactly 
wliat  they  said  in  the  Kingdom  of  A— — ,  accord- 
ing to  the  Spanish  traveller.  "  Highway  robbery," 
said  the  wise  men,  "  is  neither  good  nor  bad  in  itself; 
it  depends  on  circumstances.  Perliaps  too  much 
freedom  of  pillage  lias  been  given  ;  perhaps  not 
enough.  Let  us  see  ;  let  us  examine  ;  let  us  bal- 
ance the  accounts  of  each  robber.  To  those  who 
do  not  make  enough,  we  will  give  a  little  more  road 
to  work  up.  As  for  those  wdio  make  too  much,  we 
will  reduce  their  share." 

Those  who  spoke  thus  acquired  great  fame  for 
moderation,  prudence,  and  wisdom.  They  never 
failed  to  attain  the  highest  offices  of  the  State, 

As  for  those  who  said,  "  Let  us  repress  injustice 
altogetlier  ;  let  us  allow  neither  rohhery,  nor  half 
robbery,  rvoY  quarter  robbery,''''  they  passed  for  theo- 
rists, dreamers,  bores — always  parroting  the  same 
thing.  The  people  also  found  their  reasoning  too 
easy  to  understand.  How  can  that  be  true  which 
is  so  very  simple  ? 


254  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 


THE   TAX    COLLECTOR. 

Jacques  Bonhomme,  Vine-grower. 
M.  Lasouche,  Tax  Collector. 

L.  You  liave  secured  twenty  hogsheads  of  wine  ? 

J.  Yes,  with  mucli  care  and  sweat. 

— Be  so  kind  as  to  give  me  six  of  the  best. 

— Six  hogsheads  out  of  twenty  !  Good  heavens  ! 
you  want  to  rufa  me.  If  you  j)lease,  what  do  you 
propose  to  do  with  them  ? 

— The  first  will  be  given  to  the  creditors  of  the 
State.  When  one  has  debts,  the  least  one  can  do 
is  to  pay  the  interest. 

— Where  did  the  principal  go  ? 

— It  would  take  too  long  to  tell.  A  part  of  it 
was  once  upon  a  time  put  in  cartridges,  which  made 
the  finest  smoke  in  the  world  ;  with  another  part 
men  were  hired  who  were  maimed  on  foreign 
ground,  after  having  ravaged  it.  Then,  when  these 
expenses  brought  the  enemy  upon  us,  he  would  not 
leave  without  taking  money  witli  him,  which  we 
had  to  borrow. 

— What   good  do  I  get  from  it  now  ? 

— The  satisfaction  of  saying  : 

How  proud  am  I  of  being  a  Frenchman 
When  I  behold  the  triumphal  column, 


THE   TAX    COLLECTOR.  256 

and  the  humiliation  of  leaving  to  my  heirs  an  estate 
burdened  with  a  perpetual  rent.  Still  one  must  pay 
what  he  owes,  no  matter  how  foolish  a  use  may  have 
been  made  of  the  money. 

— That  accounts  for  one  hogshead,  but  the  five 
others  ? 

— One  is  required  to  pay  for  public  services,  the 
civil  list,  the  judges  who  decree  the  restitution  of 
the  bit  of  land  your  neighbor  wants  to  appropriate, 
the  policemen  who  drive  away  robbers  while  you 
sleep,  the  men  who  repair  the  road  leading  to  the 
city,  the  priest  who  baptizes  your  children,  the 
teacher  who  educates  them,  and  myself,  your  ser- 
vant, who  does  not  work  for  nothing. 

— Certainly,  service  for  service.  There  is  noth- 
ing to  say  against  that.  I  had  rather  make  a  bar- 
gain directly  with  my  priest,  but  I  do  not  insist  on 
this.  So  much  for  the  second  hogshead.  This 
leaves  four,  however. 

— Do  you  believe  that  two  would  be  too  much 
for  your  share  of  the  army  and  navy  expenses  ? 

— Alas,  it  is  little  compared  with  what  they  have 
cost  me  already.  They  have  taken  from  me  two 
sons  whom  I  tenderly  loved. 

—  The  balance  of  power  in  Europe  must  be  main- 
tained. 

—Well,  my  God  !  the  balance  of  power  would 
be  the  same  if  these  forces  were  everywhere  reduced 
a  half  or    three    quarters.     We  should    save    our 


256  SOPHISMS   OF    PROTECTION. 

cliildren  and  our  money.     All  that  is  needed  is  to 
understand  it. 

— Yes,  but  they  do  not  understand  it. 

— That  is  what  amazes  me.  For  every  one  suf- 
fers from  it. 

- — You  wislied  it  so,  Jacques  Bonhomme. 

— Y^ou  are  jesting,  my  dear  Mr.  Collector  ;  have 
I  a  vote  in  the  legislative  halls  ? 

— Whom  did  you  support  for  Deputy  ? 

— An  excellent  General,  who  will  be  a  Marshal 
presently,  if  God  spares  his  life. 

— On  what  does  this  excellent  General  live  ? 

— My  hogsheads,  I  presume. 

— And  what  would  happen  were  he  to  vote  for  a 
reduction  of  the  army  and  your  military  establish- 
ment ? 

— Instead  of  being  made  a  Marshal,  he  would  be 
retired. 

— Do  you  now  understand  that  yourself  ? 

— Let  us  pass  to  the  fifth  hogshead,  I  beg  of  you. 

— That  goes  to  Algeria, 

— To  Algeria  !  And  they  tell  me  that  all  Mus- 
sulmans are  temperance  people,  the  barbarians  ! 
What  services  will  they  give  me  in  exchange  for 
this  ambrosia,  which  has  cost  me  so  much  labor  ? 

— None  at  all  ;  it  is  not  intended  for  Mussulmans, 
but  for  good  Christians  who  spend  their  days  in 
Barbary. 

— What  can  they  do  there  which  will  be  of  ser- 
vice to  me  ? 


THE    TAX    COLLECTOR.  257 

— Undertake  and  undergo  raids  ;  kill  and  lie 
killed  ;  get  dysenteries  and  come  home  to  be  doc- 
tored ;  dig  harbors,  make  roads,  build  villages  and 
people  them  with  Maltese,  Italians,  Spaniards,  and 
Swiss,  who  live  on  your  hogshead,  and  many  others 
which  1  shall  come  in  the  future  to  ask  of  you, 

— Mercy  !  This  is  too  much,  and  I  flatly  refuse 
you  my  hogshead.  They  would  send  a  wine- 
grower wlio  did  such  foolish  acts  to  the  madhouse. 
Make  roads  in  the  Atlas  Mountains,  when  I  cannot 
get  out  of  my  own  house  !  Dig  ports  in  Barbary 
when  the  Garonne  fills  up  with  sand  every  day  ! 
Take  from  me  my  children  whom  I  love,  in  order 
to  torment  Arabs  !  Make  me  pay  for  the  houses, 
grain,  and  horses,  given  to  the  Greeks  and  Maltese, 
when  there  are  so  many  poor  around  us  ! 

— The  poor  !  Exactly  ;  they  free  the  country 
of  this  superfluity . 

— Oh,  yes,  by  sending  after  them  to  Algeria  the 
money  which  woidd  enable  them  to  live  here. 

— But  then  you  lay  the  basis  of  a  great  empire, 
you  carry  civilization  into  Africa,  and  you  crown 
your  country  with  immortal  glory. 

— You  are  a  poet,  my  dear  Collector  ;  but  I  am 
a  vine-grower,  and  I  refuse. 

— Think  that  in  a  few  thousand  years  you  will 
get  back  your  advances  a  hundredfold.  All  those 
who  have  charge  of  the  enterprise  say  so. 

— At  first  they  asked  me  for  one  barrel  of  wine 


258  SOPHISMS   OF    PROTECTION. 

to  meet  expenses,  then  two,  then  tliree,  and  now  I 
am  taxed  a  hogsliead.     I  persist  in  my  refusal. 

— It  is  too  hite.  Youi"  i^epresentative  has  agreed 
that  you  sliall  give  a  liogshead. 

— That  is  hut  too  true.  Cursed  weakness  !  It 
seems  to  me  that  I  was  unwise  in  nuiking  him  my 
agent  ;  for  wiiat  is  there  in  conmion  between  the 
General  of  an  army  and  the  poor  owner  of  a  vine- 
yard ? 

—  You  see  well  that  there  is  sometliing  in  com- 
mon between  yon,  were  it  only  the  wine  you  make, 
and  whicli,  in  your  name,  he  votes  to  himself. 

— Laugh  at  me  ;  I  deserve  it,  my  dear  Collector. 
But  be  reasonable,  and  leave  me  the  sixth  hogshead 
at  least.  The  interest  of  the  debt  is  paid,  the  civil 
list  provided  for,  the  public  service  assured,  and  the 
war  in  Africa  perpetuated.  What  more  do  you 
want  ? 

— The  bargain  is  not  made  with  me.  You  must 
tell  your  desires  to  the  Generah  lie  has  disjiosed 
of  your  vintage. 

— But  what  do  you  propose  to  do  with  this  poor 
hogshead,  the  flower  of  my  flock  ?  Come,  taste  this 
wine.      How  mellow,  delicate,  velvety  it  is  ! 

— Excellent,  delicious  !     It  will  suit  D ,  the 

cloth  manufacturer,  admirably. 

— D ,     the    manufacturer  !      What  do    you 

mean  ? 

• — That  he  will  make  a  good  bargain  out  of  it. 


THE    TAX    COLLECTOR.  259 

— How?    What  is  that  ?   I  do  not  understand  yon. 

— Do  you  not   know  that  D has  started  a 

magnificent  estabhshment  very  useful  to  the  coun- 
try, but  which  loses  much  money  every  year  ? 

— I  am  very  sorry.  But  what  can  I  do  to  help 
him  ? 

— The  legislature  saw  that  if  things  went  on 
thus,  D would  either  have  to  do  a  better  busi- 
ness or  close  his  manufactory. 

— But  what  connection  is  there  between  D 's 

bad  speculations  and  my  hogshead  ? 

— ^The  Chamber  thought  that  if  it  gave  D a 

little  wine  from  your  cellar,  a  few  bushels  of  grain 
taken  from  your  neighbors,  and  a  few  pennies  cut 
from  the  wages  of  the  workingnien,  his  losses  would 
change  into  profits. 

— This   recipe  is  as  infallible   as   it  is   ingenious. 

But  it  is  shockingly  unjust.      Wiiat  !  is   D to 

cover  his  losses  l)y  taking  my  wine  ? 

— Not  exactly  the  wine,  but  the  proceeds  of  it. 
That  is  what  we  call  a  hounty  for  encouragement. 
But  you  look  amazed  !  Do  not  you  see  what  a  great 
service;  you  render  to  the  country  ? 

— You  mean  to  say  to  D ? 

— To  the  country.     D asserts  that,  thanks  to 

this  arrangement,  his  business  prospers,  and  thus  it 
is,  says  he,  that  the  country  grows  rich.  That  is 
what  lie  recently  said  in  the  Chamber  of  which  he 
is  a  member. 


260  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

— It  is  a  danmable  fraud  !  Wliat  !  A  fool  goes 
into  a  silly  enterprise,  he  spends  his  money,  and  if 
he  extorts  from  me  wine  or  grain  enough  to  make 
good  his  losses,  and  even  to  make  him  a  profit,  he 
calls  it  a  general  gain  ! 

— Your  representative  having  come  to  that  conclu- 
sion, all  you  have  to  do  is  to  give  me  the  six  hogs- 
heads of  wine,  and  sell  the  fourteen  that  I  leave 
you  for  as  much  as  possible. 

— That  is  my  business. 

— For,  you  see,  it  would  be  very  annoying  if 
you  did  not  get  a  good  price  for  them. 

— I  will  think  of  it. 

— For  there  are  many  things  which  the  money 
you  receive  must  procure. 

— 1  know  it,  sir.      1  know  it. 

— In  the  first  place,  if  you  buy  iron  to  renew 
your  spades  and  ploughshares,  a  law  declares  that 
yuu  njust  pay  the  ironmaster  twice  what  it  was 
worth. 

—  Ah,  yes  ;  does  not  the  same  thing  happen  in 
the  Black  Forest  ? 

— Then,  if  you  need  oil,  meat,  cloth,  coal,  wool, 
and  sugar,  each  one  by  the  law  will  cost  you  twice 
what  it  is  worth. 

—  But  this  is  horrible,  frightful,  abominable. 

— What  is  the  use  of  these  hard  words  ?  You 
yourself,  through  your  authorized  agent — 

—Leave  me  alone  with  mv  authorized  a£;:ent.     I 


UTOPIAN    IDEAS.  261 

made,  a  veiy  strange  disposition  of  my  vote,  it  is 
true.  But  they  shall  deceive  me  no  more,  and  I 
will  be  represented  ])y  some  good  and  honest 
countryman. 

— Bah,  you  will  re-elect  the  worthy  General. 

I  ?  I  re-elect  the  General  to  give  away  my  wine 
to  Africans  and  manufacturers  ? 

—You  will  re-elect  him,  I  say. 

— That  is  a  little  too  much.  I  will  not  re-elect 
him,  if  I  do  not  want  to. 

— But  you  will  want  to,  and  you  will  re-elect 
him. 

Let  him  come  here  and  try.  lie  will  see  who  lie 
will  have  to  settle  with. 

We  shall  see.  Good-by.  I  take  away  your  six 
hogsheads,  and  will  proceed  to  divide  them  as  the 
General  hiis  directed. 


XI. 

UTOPIAN    IDEAS, 


If  I  were  His  Majesty's  Minister  ! 

— Well,  what  would  you  do  ? 

— I  should  begin  by — by — upon  my  word,  by 
being  very  much  embarrassed.  For  I  should  be 
Minister  only  because   I  had  the  majority,  and  I 


262  SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION. 

should  have  that  only  because  I  liad  made  it,  and 
I  could  oply  have  made  it,  honestly  at  least,  by 
governing  according  to  its  ideas.  So  if  I  under- 
take to  carry  out  my  ideas  and  to  run  counter  to  its 
ideas,  I  shall  not  have  the  majority,  and  if  I  do 
not,  I  cannot  be  His  Majesty's  Minister. 

— Just  imagine  that  you  are  so,  and  that  conse- 
quently the  majority  is  not  opposed  to  you,  what 
would  you  do  ? 

— I  would  look  to  see  on  which  side  Justice  is. 

— And  then  ? 

• — I  would  seek 'to  find  where  utility  was. 

—What  next  ? 

— I  would  see  whether  they  agreed,  or  were  in 
conflict  with  one  another. 

— 'And  if  you  found  they  did  not  agree  ? 

— I  would  say  to  the  King,  take  back  your  port- 
folio. 

— But  suppose  you  see  that  justice  and  iitility 
are  one  ? 

— Then  I  will  go  straight  ahead. 

— Very  well,  but  to  realize  utility  by  justice,  a 
third  thing  is  necessary. 

—  What  is  that  ? 

— Possibility. 

— You  conceded  that. 

—When  ? 

— Just  now. 

— How  I 


UTOPIAN    IDEAS.  263 

— By  gi^^ni]J  irie  tlie  majority. 

— It  seems  to  me  tliat  tlie  concession  was  rather 
hazardous,  for  it  implies  that  the  majority  clearly 
sees  what  is  just,  clearly  sees  what  is  useful,  aud 
clearly  sees  that  these  things  are  in  perfect   accord. 

— And  if  it  sees  this  clearly,  the  good  will,  so  to 
speak,  do  itself. 

— Tliis  is  the  point  to  which  you  are  constantly 
bringing  me — to  see  a  possibility  of  reform  only  in 
the  progress  of  the  general  intelligence. 

— By  this  progress  all  reform  is  infallible. 

■ — Certainly.  But  this  preliminary  progress  takes 
time.  Let  us  suppose  it  accomplished.  What  will 
you  do  ?  for  I  am  eager  to  see  you  at  work,  doing, 
practising. 

— I  should  begin  by  reducing  letter  postage  to 
ten  centimes. 

— I  heard  you  speak  of  five,  once. 

— Yes  ;  but  as  I  have  other  reforms  in  view,  I 
must  move  with  prudence,  to  avoid  a  deficit  in  the 
revenues. 

— Prudence  ?  This  leaves  you  with  a  deficit  of 
thirty  millions. 

— Then  I  will  reduce  the  salt  tax  to  ten  francs. 

— Good  !  Here  is  another  deficit  of  thirty  mill- 
ions.    Doubtless  you  have  invented  some  new  tax. 

— Heaven  forbid  !  Besides,  I  do  not  flatter  my- 
self that  I  have  an  inventive  mind. 

— It   is   necessary,    however.       Oh,    I   have   it. 


264:  SOPHISMS  of  protection. 

What  was  1  tliinkiiig  of  ?  You  arc  simply  goins;; 
to  diminish  the  expense.      I  did  not  think  of  that. 

— You  are  not  the  only  one.  I  shall  come  to 
tliat  ;  but  1  do  not  count  on  it  at  present. 

— What  !  you  diminish  the  receipts,  without  les- 
sening expenses,  and  you  avoid  a  deficit  ? 

— Yes,  by  diminishing  other  taxes  at  tlie  same 
time. 

(Here  the  interlocutor,  putting  the  index  finger 
of  his  right  hand  on  his  forehead,  shook  his  head, 
which  may  be  translated  thus  :  He  is  rambling  ter- 
ribly.) 

— Well,  upon  my  word,  this  is  ingenious.  I  pay 
the  Treasury  a  hundred  francs  ;  you  relieve  me  of 
live  francs  on  salt,  five  on  postage  ;  and  in  order  that 
the  Treasury  may  nevertheless  receive  one  hundred 
francs,  you  reheve  me  of  ten  on  some  other  tax  ? 

— Precisely  ;  you  understand  me. 

— How  can  it  be  true  ?  I  am  not  even  sure  that 
1  have  heard  you. 

—I  repeat  that  I  balance  one  rc^iission  of  taxes 
by  another. 

— 1  have  a  little  time  to  give,  and  I  should  like  to 
hear  you  expound  this  paradox. 

— Here  is  the  whole  mystery  :  1  know  a  tax 
which  costs  you  twenty  francs,  not  a  sou  of  which 
gets  to  the  Treasury.  1  relieve  you  of  half  of  it, 
and  make  the  other  half  take  its  proper  destination. 

— You  are  an  unequalled  financier.     There  is  but 


UTOPIAH   IDEAS.  265 

one  difficulty.  Wliat  tax,  if  you  please,  do  I  pay, 
vvliicli  does  not  go  to  tlio  Treasury  ? 

— How  nuicli  does  this  suit  of  clothes  cost  you  ? 

- — A  hundred  francs. 

— How  much  would  it  have  cost  you  if  you  had 
gotten  the  cloth  from  Belgium  ? 

— Eighty  francs. 

— Then  why  did  you  not  get  it  there  ? 

— Because  it  is  prohibited. 

—Why  ? 

— So  that  the  suit  may  cost  me  one  hundred 
francs  instead  of  eighty. 

—This  denial,  then,  costs  you  twenty  francs  ? 

— Undoubtedly. 

— And  where  do  these  twenty  francs  go  ? 

— Where  do  they  go  ?  To  the  manufacturer  of 
the  cloth. 

—Well,  give  me  ten  francs  foi  the  Treasury, 
and  I  will  remove  the  restriction,  and  you  will 
gain  ten  francs. 

— Oh,  I  begin  to  see.  The  treasury  account 
shows  that  it  loses  five  francs  on  postage  and  five  on 
salt,  and  gains  ten  on  cloth.      That  is  even. 

— Your  account  is — you  gain  five  francs  on  salt, 
five  on  postage,  and  ten  on  cloth. 

— Total,  twenty  francs.  This  is  satisfactory 
enough.  But  what  becomes  of  the  poor  cloth 
manufacturer  ? 

— Oh,  I  have  thoudit  of  him.     I  have  secured 


266 


SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 


compensation  for  liim  bj  means  of  the  tax  reduc- 
tions which  are  so  profitable  to  tlie  Treasury. 
AVliat  I  have  done  for  you  as  regards  cloth,  I  do  for 
him  in  regard  to  wool,  coal,  machinery,  etc.,  so  that 
lie  can  lower  his  price  without  loss. 

— But  are  you  sure  that  will  be  an  equivalent  ? 

— The  balance  will  be  in  his  favor.  The  twenty 
francs  that  you  gain  on  the  cloth  will  be  multiplied 
by  those  which  I  will  save  for  you  on  grain,  meat, 
fuel,  etc.  This  will  amount  to  a  large  sum,  and 
each  one  of  your  35,000,000  fellow-citizens  will 
save  the  same  way.  There  will  be  enough  to  con- 
sume the  cloths  of  both  Belgium  and  France.  The 
nation  will  be  better  clothed  ;  that  is  all. 

—I  will  think  on  this,  for  it  is  somewhat  con- 
fused in  my  head. 

— After  all,  as  far  as  clothes  go,  the  main  thing 
is  to  be  clothed.  Your  limbs  are  your  own,  and 
not  the  mainifacturer's.  To  shield  them  from  cold 
is  your  business,  and  not  his.  If  the  law  takes  sides 
for  him  against  you,  the  law  is  unjust,  and  you  al- 
lowed me  to  reason  on  the  hypothesis  that  what  is 
unjust  is  hurtful. 

— -Perhaps  I  admitted  too  much  ;  but  go  on  and 
explain  your  financial  plan. 

— Then  1  will  make  a  tariff. 

— In  two  folio  volumes  î 

— "No,  in  two  sections. 

— Then  they  will  no  longer  say  that  this  famous 


UTOPIAN    IDEAS.  267 

axiom,  "  No  one  is  supposed  to  be  ignorant  of  the 
law,"  is  a  fiction.      Let  us  see  your  tariff. 

— Here  it  is  :  Section  First.  All  iiiiports  shall 
pay  an  ad  valorem  tax  of  five  per  cent. 

— Even  raw  materials  f 

— Unless  they  are  vxyrthless. 

— But  they  all  have  value,  much  or  little. 

— Then  they  will  pay  much  or  little. 

— How  can  our  manufactories  compete  with  for- 
eign ones  which  have  these  raw  materials  free  ? 

— The  expenses  of  the  State  being  certain,  if  we 
close  this  source  of  revenue  we  must  open  another  ; 
this  will  not  diminish  the  relative  inferiority  of  our 
manufactories,  and  there  will  be  one  bureau  more 
to  organize  and  pay. 

— That  is  true  ;  I  reasoned  as  if  the  tax  was  to 
be  annulled,  not  changed.  1  will  refiect  on  this. 
What  is  your  second  section  ? 

— Section  Second.  All  exports  shall  pay  an  ad 
imlorem  tax  of  five  per  cent. 

— Merciful  Heavens,  Mr.  Utopist  !  You  will 
certainly  be  stoned,  and,  if  it  comes  to  that,  I  will 
throw  the  first  one. 

— We  agreed  that  the  majority  were  enlightened. 

— Enlightened  !  Can  you  claim  that  an  export 
duty  is  not  onerous  ? 

— All  taxes  are  onerous,  but  this  is  less  so  than 
others. 

— The  carnival  justifies  many  eccentricities.     Be 


268  SOPHISMS    OF    PKOTKCTION. 

BO  kind  as  to  make  this  new  paradox  appear  spe- 
cious, if  you  can. 

— How  mucli  did  you  pay  for  this  wine  ? 

— A  franc  per  quart. 

— riow  much  would  you  have  paid  outside  tlio 
city  gates  ? 

— Fifty  centimes. 

— Why  tliis  difference  ? 

— Ask  the  octroi  *  wliich  added  ten  sous  to  it. 

— Who  established  'ùxo.joctfoi  ? 

■ — The  municipality  of  Paris,  in  order  to  pave 
and  light  the  streets. 

— This  is,  then,  an  import  duty.  But  if  the 
neighboring  country  districts  had  established  this 
octroi  for  their  profit,  what  would  happen  ? 

— I  should  nonp  the  less  pay  a  franc  for  wine 
"worth  only  fifty  centimes,  and  the  other  fifty  cen- 
times would  pave  and  light  Montmartre  and  the 
Batignolles. 

— So  that  really  it  is  the  consumer  who  pays  the 
tax  ? 

— There  is  no  doubt  of  that. 

— Then  by  taxing  exports  you  make  foreigners 
help  pay  your  expenses. f 


*  The  entrance  duty  levied  at  the  gates  of  French  towns. 

t  I  understand  M.  Bastiat  to  mean  merely  that  export  duties  are  not 
necessarily  more  oneroua  than  import  duties.  The  statement  that  all  taxea 
are  paid  by  tlie  consumer,  is  liable  to  important  modifications.  An  export 
duty  may  be  laid  in  such  way,  and  on  such  articles,  that  it  will  be  paid 
ivholly  by  the  foreign  consumer,  without  loss  to  the  producing  country,  but 


UTOriAN    IDEAS.  2^>i) 

— I  find  yon  at  fault,  this  is  not  j tistlce. 

- — Why  not  ?  In  order  to  secure  the  production  of 
any  one  thing,  there  must  1)0  instruction,  security, 
roads,  and  other  costly  things  in  the  country.  Why 
shall  not  the  foreigner  who  is  to  consume  this  prod- 
uct, bear  the  charges  its  production  necessitates  ? 

— This  is  contrary  to  received  ideas. 

— Not  the  least  in  the  world.  The  last  purchaser 
must  repay  all  the  direct  and  indirect  expenses  of 
production. 

— No  matter  what  you  say,  it  is  plain  that  such  a 
measure  would  paralyze  connnercc,  and  cut  off  all 
exports. 

—That  is  an  illusion.  If  you  were  to  pay  this 
tax  besides  all  the  others,  you  would  be  right. 
But  if  the  hundred  millions  raised  in  this  way  re- 
lieve you  of  other  taxes  to  the  same  amount,  you 
go  into  foreign  markets  with  all  your  advantages, 
and  even  with  more,  if  this  duty  has  occasioned 
less  embarrassment  and  expense. 

■ — I  Avill  reflect  on  this.  So  now  the  salt,  postage, 
and  customs  are  I'egulated.     Is  all  ended  there  ? 

— 1  am  just  beginning. 

— Pray,  initiate  me  in  your  Utopian  ideas. 

— I  have  lost  sixty  millions  on  salt  and  postage. 
I  shall  regain  them  through  the  customs  ;  which 
also  gives  me  something  more  precious. 

it  is  only  when  the  additional  cost  does  not  lessen  the  demand,  or  induce 
the  foreigner  to  produce  the  same  arlicle. — Trundalor. 


270  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

— What,  pray  ? 

— International  relations  founded  on  justice,  and 
a  probability  of  peace  wliicli  is  equivalent  to  a  cer- 
tainty.     1  will  disband  the  army. 

— The  whole  army  ? 

— Except  special  branches,  which  will  be  volun- 
tarily recruited,  like  all  other  professions.  You  see, 
conscription  is  abolished. 

— Sir,  you  should  say  recruiting. 

— Ah,  I  forgot,  I  cannot  help  admiring  the  ease 
with  which,  in  certain  countries,  the  most  unpopu- 
lar things  are  perj^etuated  by  giving  them  other 
names. 

— Like  consolidated  duties^  w^hich  have  become 
indirect  contributions. 

— And  the  gendai^mes,  who  have  taken  the  name 
of  mnunicijpal  guards. 

— In  short,  trusting  to  Utopia,  you  disarm  the 
country. 

— I  said  that  I  would  muster  out  the  army,  not 
that  I  would  disarm  the  country,  I  intend,  on  the 
contrary,  to  give  it  invincible  power. 

— How  do  you  harmonize  this  mass  of  contradic- 
tions ? 

— I  call  all  the  citizens  to  service. 

— Is  it  worth  while  to  relieve  a  portion  from  ser- 
vice in  order  to  call  out  everybody  ? 

— You  did  not  make  me  Minister  in  order  that  I 
should  leave  things  as  they  are.     Thus,  on  my  ad- 


UTOI'IAX    IDKAS.  27 L 

vent  to  jiower,  I  Bliall  say  with  Tliclielien,  "  The 
State  jiiaxiins  are  changed."  My  first  maxim,  the 
one  which  will  serve  as  a  hnsis  for  my  adminis- 
tration, is  this  :  Every  citizen  must  hnow  two 
things— how  to  earn  his  own  living,  and  defend  his 
country. 

— It  seems  to  me,  at  the  first  glance,  that  there 
is  a  spark  of  good  sense  in  this. 

— Consequently,  I  base  the  national  defence  on  a 
law  consisting  of  two  sections. 

Section  First,  Every  able-bodied  citizen,  without 
excej^tion,  shall  be  under  arms  for  four  years,  from 
liis  twenty-first  to  his  twenty-fifth  year,  in  order  to 
receive  military  instruction. 

— This  is  pretty  economy  !  You  send  home  four 
hundred  thousand  soldiers  and  call  out  ten  millions. 

— Listen  to  my  second  section  : 

Sec.  2.  Unless  he  proves,  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
one,  that  he  knows  the  school  of  the  soldier  per- 
fectly. 

— I  did  not  expect  this  turn.  It  is  certain  that 
to  avoid  four  years'  service,  there  will  be  a  great 
emulation  among  our  youth,  to  learn  hj  the  rigid 
Jlanh  and  double  quich,  march.     The  idea  is  odd. 

— It  is  better  than  that.  Eor  without  grieving 
families  and  offending  equality,  does  it  not  assure 
the  country,  in  a  simple  and  inexpensive  manner, 
of  ten  million  defenders,  capable  of  defying  a  coali- 
tion of  all  the  standing  armies  of  the  globe  ? 


273  SOPHISMS    OF    TROTECTION. 

— Truly,  if  I  were  not  on  my  «^iiard,  I  bIiouM 
end  in  getting  interested  in  your  fancies. 

The  Utopist^  getting  excited  :  Thank  Heaven,  my 
estimates  are  relieved  of  a  hundred  millions  !  I 
suppress  the  octroi,  I  refund  indirect  contribu- 
tions.    I — 

Getting  more  and  more  excited:  I  will  proclaim 
religious  freedom  and  free  instruction.  There  shall 
be  new  resources.  I  will  buy  the  railroads,  pay  off 
the  public  debt,  and  starve  out  the  stock-gamblers. 

— My  dear  Utopist  ! 

— Freed  from  too  numerous  cares,  I  will  concen- 
trate all  the  resources  of  the  government  on  the  re- 
pression of  fraud,  the  administration  of  prompt  and 
even-handed  justice.     1 — - 

— My  dear  Utopist,  you  attempt  too  much.  The 
nation  will  not  follow  you. 

— You  gave  me  the  majority. 

— I  take  it  back. 

— Yery  m'cII  ;  then  I  am  no  longer  Minister  ;  but 
my  plans  remain  what  they  are — Utopian  ideas. 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN.  273 

XII. 

SALT,    POSTAGE,    AND    CUSTOMS. 

[This  chapter  is  an  ainusing  dialogue,  relating 
principally  to  English  Postal  Reform,  Being  inap- 
plicable to  any  condition  of  things  existing  in  the 
United  States,  it  is  omitted. — Translator. '[ 


Xlll. 

THE    THREE    ALDERMEN. 

A   DEMONSTKATION    IN    FOUR    TABLEAUX. 

First  Tahleau. 

[The  scene  is  in  the  hotel  of  Alderman  Pierre. 
The  window  looks  out  on  a  fine  park  ;  three  per- 
sons are  seated  near  a  good  fire.] 

Pierre.  Upon  ray  word,  a  fire  is  very  comfort- 
able when  the  stomach  is  satisfied.  It  must  be 
agreed  that  it  is  a  pleasant  thing.  But,  alas  !  how 
many  worthy  people  like  the  King  of  1  vetot, 

"Blow  on  their  fingers  for  want  of  wood." 

Unhappy   creatures,  Heaven    inspires   me   with    a 
charitable  thought.     You  see  these  fine  trees.     I 


274  SOPHISMS   OF    PROTECTION. 

will  cut  them  down  and  distribute  the  wood  among 
the  poor. 

Paul  and  Jean.   Wliat  !  gratis? 

Pierre.  Not  exactly.  There  would  soon  be  an 
end  of  my  good  worlcs  if  I  scattered  my  property 
thus.  I  think  that  my  park  is  worth  twenty  thou- 
sand livres  ;  by  cutting  it  down  I  shall  get  much 
more  for  it. 

Paul.  A  mistake.  Your  wood  as  it  stands  is 
worth  more  than  that  in  the  neighboring  forests, 
for  it  renders  services  which  that  cannot  give. 
When  cut  down  it  will,  like  that,  be  good  for  burn- 
ing only,  and  will  not  be  worth  a  sou  more  per 
cord. 

Pierre.  Oh  !  Mr.  Theorist,  you  forget  that  I  am 
a  practical  man.  I  supposed  that  my  reputation  as 
a  speculator  was  well  enough  established  to  put  me 
above  any  charge  of  stupidity.  Do  you  think  that 
I  shall  amuse  myself  by  selling  my  wood  at  the 
price  of  other  wood  ? 

Paul.   You  must. 

Pierre.  Simpleton  !  Suppose  I  prevent  the 
bringing  of  any  wood  to  Paris  ? 

Paxil.  That  will  alter  the  case.  But  how  will 
you  manage  it  ? 

Pierre.  This  is  the  whole  secret.  You  know- 
that  wood  2^^ys  an  entrance  duty  of  ten  sous  per 
cord.  To-morrow  I  will  induce  the  Aldermen  to 
raise  this  duty  to  one  hundred,  two  hundred,  or 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN.  275 

three  hundred  hvres,  so  high  as  to  keep  out  every 
fagot.  Well,  do  you  see  ?  If  the  good  people  do 
not  want  to  die  of  cold,  they  must  come  to  my 
wood-yard.  They  will  fight  for  my  wood  ;  I  shall 
sell  it  for  its  weight  in  gold,  and  this  well-regulated 
deed  of  charity  will  enable  me  to  do  others  of  the 
same  sort. 

Paul.  This  is  a  fine  idea„  and  it  suggests  an 
equally  good  one  to  me. 

Jean.   Well,  what  is  it  ? 

Paul.  How  do  you  find  this  Normandy  butter  ? 

Jean.  Excellent. 

Paul.  Well,  it  seemed  passable  a  moment  ago. 
But  do  you  not  think  it  is  a  little  strong  ?  I  want 
to  make  a  better  article  at  Paris.  I  will  have  four 
or  five  hundred  cows,  and  I  will  distribute  milk, 
butter,  and  cheese  to  the  poor  people. 

Pierre  and  Jean.   What  !  as  a  charity  ? 

Paul.  Bah,  let  us  always  put  charity  in  the  fore- 
ground. It  is  such  a  fine  thing  that  its  counterfeit 
even  is  an  excellent  card.  I  will  give  my  butter  to 
the  people,  and  they  will  give  me  their  money.  Is 
that  called  selling  ? 

Jean.  No,  according  to  the  Bourgeois  Gentil- 
hoimne  /  but  call  it  what  you  please,  you  ruin  your- 
self. Can  Paris  compete  with  Normandy  in  rais- 
ing cows  ? 

Paul.  I  shall  save  the  cost  of  transportation. 

Jean.  Very  well  ;  but  the  Normans  are  able  to 


276  POPIIISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

heat  the  Parisians,  even  if  they  do  liave  to  pay  for 
transportation. 

Paul.  Do  you  call  it  heating  any  one  to  furnish 
him  things  at  a  low  price  ? 

Jean.  It  is  the  time-honored  word.  You  will 
always  be  beaten. 

Paul.  Yes  ;  like  Don  Quixote.  The  blows  will 
fall  on  Sancho.  Jean,  my  friend,  you  forgot  the 
octroi. 

Jean.  The  octroi  !  What  has  that  to  do  with 
your  butter  ? 

Paul.  To-morrow  I  -will  àeva?inà  jyrotection^  and 
I  will  induce  the  Council  to  prohibit  the  butter  of 
Normandy  and  Brittany.  The  people  must  do 
without  butter,  or  buy  mine,  and  that  at  my  price, 
too. 

Jean.  Gentlemen,  your  philanthropy  carries  me 
alono-  with  it.  "In  time  one  learns  to  howl  with 
the  wolves."  It  shall  not  be  said  that  I  am  an  un- 
worthy Alderman.  Pierre,  this  sparkling  fire  has 
illumined  your  soul  ;  Paul,  this  butter  has  given  an 
impulse  to  your  understanding,  and  I  perceive  that 
this  piece  of  salt  pork  stimulates  my  intelligence. 
To-morrow  I  will  vote  myself,  and  make  others  vote, 
for  the  exclusion  of  hogs,  dead  or  alive  ;  this  done,  I 
will  Iniild  superb  stock-yards  in  the  middle  of  Paris 
"for  the  unclean  animal  forbidden  to  the  Hebrew^s.  " 
I  will  become   swineherd   and  porkseller,  and  we 


THE   TIIEEK    ALDERMEN,  277 

shall  see  how  the  good  people  of  Lutctia  can  hel]) 
getting  their  food  at  my  shop. 

Pierre.  Gently,  iny  friends  ;  if  you  thus  run  up 
the  price  of  butter  and  salt  meat,  you  diminish  the 
profit  which  I  expected  from  my  wood. 

Paul.  Nor  is  my  speculation  so  wonderful,  if 
you  ruin  me  with  your  fuel  and  your  hams. 

Jean.  What  shall  I  gain  by  making  you  pay  an 
extra  price  for  my  sausages,  if  you  overcharge  me 
for  pastry  and  fagots  ? 

Pierre.  Do  you  not  see  that  we  are  getting  into 
a  quarrel  ?  Let  us  rather  unite.  Let  us  make 
reciprocal  concessions.  Besides,  it  is  not  well  to 
listen  only  to  miserable  self-interest.  Hum,anity  is 
concerned,  and  must  not  the  warming  of  the  people 
be  secured  ? 

Paul.  That  is  true,  and  people  must  have  but- 
ter to  spread  on  their  bread. 

Jean.  Certainly.  And  they  must  have  a  bit  of 
pork  for  their  soup. 

All  Together.  Forward,  charity  !  Long  live  phi- 
lanthropy !  To-morrow,  to-morrow,  we  will  take 
the  octroi  by  assault. 

Pierre.  Ah,  1  forgot.  One  word  more,  which  is 
important.  My  friends,  in  this  selfish  age  people 
are  suspicious,  and  the  purest  intentions  are  often 
misconstrued,  Paul,  you  plead  for  vx)0(l  /  Jean, 
defend  hutter  /  and  I  will  devote  myself  to  domestic 
awine.     It  is  best  to  head  off  invidious  suspicions. 


278  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Paul  and  Jean   (leaving).     Upon    my    word, 

what  a  clever  fellow  ! 

SECOND   TABLEAU. 

The  Common   Council. 

Paul.  My  dear  colleagues,  every  day  great 
quantities  of  wood  come  into  Paris,  and  draw  out 
of  it  large  sums  of  money.  If  this  goes  on,  we 
sliall  all  be  ruined  in  three  years,  and  what  will 
become  of  the  poor  people  ?  [Bravo.]  Let  us 
prohibit  foreign  wood.  I  am  not  speaking  for 
myself,  for  you  could  not  make  a  toothpick  out  of 
all  the  wood  I  own.  I  am,  therefore,  perfectly  dis- 
interested. [Good,  good.]  But  here  is  Pierre,  who 
has  a  park,  and  he  will  keep  our  fellow-citizens 
from  freezing.  They  will  no  longer  he  in  a  state 
of  dependence  on  the  charcoal  dealers  of  the  Tonne. 
Have  you  ever  thought  of  the  risk  we  run  of  dying 
of  cold,  if  the  proprietors  of  these  foreign  forests 
should  take  it  into  their  heads  not  to  bring  any  more 
wood  to  Paris  ?  Let  us,  therefore,  jDrohibit  wood. 
By  this  means  we  shall  stop  the  drain  of  specie, 
we  shall  start  the  wood-chopping  business,  and 
open  to  our  workmen  a  new  source  of  labor  and 
wages.     [Applause.] 

Jean.  I  second  the  motion  of  the  honorable 
member  —  a  proposition  so  philanthropic  and  so 
disinterested,  as  he  remarked.     It  is  time  that  we 


THE    THREE    ALDERMEN.  279 

should  stop  tliis  intolerahle  J^reedom  of  entry,  whicli 
has  brought  a  ruinous  competition  upon  our  mar- 
ket, so  that  there  is  not  a  province  tolerably  well 
situated  for  producing  some  one  article  which  does 
not  inundate  us  with  it,  sell  it  to  us  at  a  low  price, 
and  depress  Parisian  labor.  It  is  the  business  of 
the  State  to  equalize  the  conditions  of  production 
by  wisely  graduated  duties  ;  to  allow  the  entrance 
from  without  of  whatever  is  dearer  there  than  at 
P«3>ris,  and  thus  relieve  us  from  an  unequal  contest. 
How,  for  instance,  can  they  expect  us  to  make  milk 
and  butter  in  Paris  as  against  Brittany  and  Isor- 
inandy  ?  Think,  gentlemen  ;  the  Bretons  have  land 
cheaper,  feed  more  convenient,  and  labor  more 
abundant.  Does  not  common-sense  say  that  the 
conditions  must  be  equalized  by  a  protecting  duty  ? 
1  ask  that  the  duty  on  milk  and  batter  be  raised  to 
a  thousand  per  cent,  and  more,  if  necessary.  The 
breakfasts  of  the  people  will  cost  a  little  more,  but 
wages  w^ill  rise  !  We  shall  see  the  building  of 
stables  and  dairies,  a  good  trade  in  churns,  and  the 
foundation  of  new  industries  laid.  I,  myself,  have 
not  the  least  interest  in  this  plan.  I  am  not  a  cow- 
herd, nor  do  I  desire  to  become  one.  I  am  moved 
by  the  single  desire  to  be  useful  to  the  laboring 
classes.     [Expressions  of  approbation.] 

Pierre.  I  am  happy  to  see  in  this  assembly 
statesmen  so  pure,  enlightened,  and  devoted  to  the 
interests  of  the  people.      [Cheers.]     I  admire  their 


280  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

self-denial,  iiiid  cannot  do  better  than  follow  sucli 
noble  examples.  I  support  their  motion,  and  I  also 
make  one  to  exclude  Poitou  hogs.  It  is  not  that  I 
want  to  become  a  swineherd  or  ])ork-dealer,  in 
which  case  my  conscience  would  forbid  my  making 
this  motion  ;  but  is  it  not  shameful,  gentlemen, 
that  we  should  be  paying  tribute  to  these  poor 
Poitevin  peasants,  who  have  the  audacity  to  come 
into  our  own  market,  take  possession  of  a  business 
that  we  could  have  carried  on  ourselves,  and,  after 
having  inundated  us  with  sausages  and  hams,  take 
from  us,  perhaps,  nothing  in  return  ?  Anyhow, 
who  says  that  the  balance  of  trade  is  not  in  their 
favor,  and  that  we  are  not  compelled  to  pay  them 
a  tribute  in  money  ?  Is  it  not  plain  that  if  this 
Poitevin  industry  were  planted  in  Paris,  it  would 
open  new  fields  to  Parisian  labor  ?  Moreover,  gen- 
tlemen, is  it  not  very  likely,  as  Mr.  Lestiboudois 
said,  that  we  buy  these  Poitevin  salted  meats,  not 
with  our  income,  but  our  capita-1  ?  Where  will  this 
land  us  ?  Let  us  not  allow  greedy,  avaricious,  and 
perfidious  rivals  to  come  here  and  sell  things 
cheaply,  thus  making  it  impossible  for  us  to  pro- 
duce them  ourselves.  Aldermen,  Paris  has  given 
us  its  confidence,  and  we  must  show  ourselves 
worthy  of  it.  The  people  are  without  labor,  and 
we  must  create  it,  and  if  salted  meat  costs  them  a 
little  more,  we  shall,  at  least,  have  the  conscious- 
ness that  we  have  sacrificed  our  interests  to  those 


THE    TIIKEE    ALDEIOIEN.  2S1 

of  the  masses,   as  every  good  Alderman  onglit  to 
do.      [Thunders  of  applause.] 

A  Voice.  1  hear  much  said  of  the  poor  people  ; 
l)ut,  under  the  pretext  of  giving  them  labor,  jou 
begin  by  taking  away  from  them  that  which  is 
worth   more  than  labor  itself — wood,    butter,   and 

SOTip. 

Pierre,  Paul,  and  Jean.  Yote,  vote.  Away 
with  your  theorists  and  generalizcrs  !  Let  us  vote. 
[The  three  motions  are  carried.] 

THIRD    TABLEAU. 

Twenty  Years  After. 

Son.  Father,  decide  ;  we  must  leave  Paris. 
Work  is  slack,  and  everythnig  is  dear. 

Father.  JMy  son,  you  do  not  know  how  hard  it  is 
to  leave  the  place  where  we  were  born. 

Son.  Tlie  worst  of  all  tilings  is  to  die  there  of 
misery. 

Father.  Go,  my  son,  and  seek  a  more  hospitable 
country.  For  myself,  I  will  not  leave  the  grave 
where  your  mother,  sisters,  and  brothers  lie.  I  am 
eager  to  find,  at  last,  near  them,  the  rest  which  is 
denied  me  in  this  city  of  desolation. 

Son.  Courage,  dear  father,  we  will  find  work 
elsewhere  —  in  Poitou,  Normandy,  or  ]>rittany. 
They  say  that  the  industry  of  Paris  is  gradually 
transferrin^:   itself  to  those  distant  countries. 


282  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTKUTION. 

Father.  It  is  very  natural.  Unable  to  sell  us 
wood  and  food,  tliey  stopped  producing  more  than 
they  needed  for  themselves,  and  they  devoted  their 
spare  time  and  capital  to  making  those  things  which 
we  formerly  furnished  them. 

Son.  Just  as  at  Paris,  they  quit  making  hand- 
some furniture  and  fine  clothes,  in  order  to  plant 
trees,  and  raise  hogs  and  cows.  Though  quite 
young,  I  have  seen  vast  storehouses,  sumptuous 
buildings,  and  quays  thronged  with  life  on  those 
banks  of  the  Seine  which  are  now  given  up  to 
meadows  and  forests. 

Father.  While  the  provinces  are  filling  up  with 
cities,  Paris  becomes  country.  What  a  frightful 
revolution  !  Three  mistaken  Aldermen,  aided  by 
puljlic  ignorance,  have  brought  down  on  us  this  ter- 
rible calamity. 

Son.   Tell  me  this  story,  my  father. 

Father.  It  is  very  simjDle.  Under  the  pretext  of 
establishing  three  new  trades  at  Paris,  and  of  thus 
supplying  labor  to  the  workmen,  these  men  secured 
the  prohibition  of  wood,  butter,  and  meats.  They 
assumed  the  right  of  supplying  their  fellow-citizens 
with  them.  These  articles  rose  immediately  to  an 
exorbitant  price.  Nobody  made  enough  to  buy 
them,  and  the  few  who  could  procure  them  by  using 
all  they  made  were  unable  to  buy  anything  else  ; 
consequently  all  branches  of  industry  stopped  at 
once — all   the   more   so    because  the   provinces  no 


THK    THREI5    ALDERMEN.  283 

longer  offered  a  market.  Misery,  death,  and  emi- 
gration began  to  depopulate  Paris. 

Son.   When  will  this  stop  ? 

Father.  When  Paris  has  become  a  meadow  and 
a  forest. 

So7i.  The  three  Aldermen  must  have  made  a 
great  fortune. 

Fathe)-.  At  first  they  made  immense  profits,  but 
at  length  they  were  involved  in  the  connuon  misery. 

Son.   How  was  that  possible  ? 

Father.  You  see  this  ruin  ;  it  was  a  magnificent 
house,  surrounded  by  a  fine  park.  If  Paris  had 
kept  on  advancing,  Master  Pierre  M^ould  liave  got 
more  rent  from  it  annually  than  the  whole  thing  is 
now  worth  to  him. 

Son.  How  can  that  be,  since  he  got  rid  of  com- 
petition ? 

Father.  Competition  in  selling  has  disappeared  ; 
but  competition  in  buying  also  disappears  every 
day,  and  will  keep  on  disappearing  until  Paris  is  an 
open  field,  and  Master  Pierre's  woodland  will  bo 
worth  no  more  than  an  equal  numl)er  of  acres  in  the 
forest  of  Bondy.  Thus,  a  monopoly,  like  every 
species  of  injustice,  brings  its  own  punishment  upon 
itself. 

Son.  This  does  not  seem  very  plain  to  mo,  but 
the  decay  of  Paris  is  undeniable.  Is  there,  then, 
no  means  of  repealing  this  unjust  measure  that 
Pierre  and  iiis  colleagues  adopted  twenty  years  ago  ? 


2Sé  SOrmSMS    of    rKOTECTlON. 

Father.  I  will  confide  my  secret  to  yon.  I  will 
remain  at  Paris  for  this  purpose  ;  1  will  call  the 
people  to  my  aid.  It  depends  on  them  whether 
they  will  replace  the  octroi  on  its  old  basis,  and 
dismiss  from  it  this  fatal  principle,  which  is  grafted 
on  it,  and  has  grown  there  like  a  parasite  fungus. 

Son.   You  ought  to  succeed  on  the  very  first  day. 

Father.  Xo  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  work  is  a 
difficult  and  laborious  one.  Pierre,  Paul,  and  Jean 
understand  one  another  perfectly.  They  are  ready 
to  do  anything  rather  than  allow  the  entrance  of 
wood,  butter,  and  meat  into  Paris.  They  even 
have  on  their  side  the  people,  who  clearly  see  the 
labor  which  these  three  protected  branches  of  'busi- 
ness give,  who  know  how  numy  wood -choppers  and 
cow-drivers  it  gives  employment  to,  but  who  cannot 
obtain  so  clear  an  idea  of  the  labor  that  would 
spring  up  in  the  free  air  of  hberty. 

Son.  If  this  is  all  that  is  needed,  you  will  en- 
lighten them. 

Father.  My  child,  at  your  age,  one  doubts  at 
nothing.  If  I  wrote,  the  people  w^ould  not  read  ; 
for  all  their  time  is  occupied  in  supporting  a 
wretched  existence.  If  I  speak,  the  Aldermen  will 
shut  my  mouth.  The  people  Avill,  therefore,  re- 
main long  in  their  fatal  error  ;  political  parties, 
which  build  their  hopes  on  their  passions,  attempt 
to  play  upon  their  prejudices,  rather  than  to  dispel 
them.     I  shall  then  have  to  deal  with  the  powers 


THE    THREE    ALDERMEN.  285 

that  be — the  people  and  tlie  parties.  I  see  that  a 
storm  will  burst  on  the  heajtl  of  the  andacious  per- 
son who  dares  to  rise  against  an  iniquity  which  is  so 
firmly  rooted  in  the  country. 

/So7i.  Yon  will  have  justice  and  truth  on  your 
side. 

Father.  And  they  will  have  force  and  calumny. 
If  I  were  only  young  !  But  age  and  suffering 
have  exhausted  my  strength. 

Son.  Well,  father,  devote  all  that  you  have  left 
to  the  service  of  the  country.  Begin  this  work  of 
emancipation,  and  leave  to  me  for  an  inheritance 
the  task  of  finishing  it. 

FOURTH  TABLEAU. 

The  A(jitatlon. 

Jacques  Bonhomme.  Parisians,  let  us  demand 
the  reform  of  the  octroi  •  let  it  be  put  back  to  what 
it  was.  Let  every  citizen  be  free  to  buy  wood, 
butter  and  meat  where  it  seems  good  to  him. 

The  People.   Hurrah  for  liberty  ! 

Pierre.  Parisians,  do  not  allow  yourselves  to  be 
seduced  by  these  words.  Of  what  avail  is  the  free- 
dom of  purchasing,  if  you  have  not  the  means  ?  and 
how  can  you  have  the  means,  if  labor  is  wanting  ? 
Can  Paris  produce  wood  as  cheaply  as  the  forest  of 
Bondy,  or  meat  at  as  low  price  as  Poitou,  or  butter 
as  easily  as  Kormandy  ?     If  you  open  the  doors  to 


286  ■      SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

these  rival  products,  what  will  become  of  tlie  "^vood- 
cuttcrs,  pork-dealers,  and  cattle-drivers  ?  They 
cannot  do  without  protection. 

The  People.  Hurrah  for  protection  ! 

Jacques.  Protection  !  But  do  they  protect  you, 
workmen  ?  Do  not  you  compete  with  one  another  ? 
Let  the  wood- dealers  then  suffer  competition  in 
their  turn.  They  have  no  right  to  raise  the  price 
of  their  wood  by  law,  unless  they,  also,  by  law, 
raise  wages.     Do  you  not  still  love  equality  ? 

The  People.   Hurrah  for  EQUALrrY  ! 

Pierre.  Do  not  listen  to  this  factious  fellow. 
We  have  raised  the  price  of  wood,  meat,  and 
butter,  it  is  true  ;  but  it  is  in  order  that  we  may 
give  good  wages  to  the  workmen.  We  are  moved 
by  charity. 

The  People.  Hurrah  for  charity  ! 

Jacques.  Use  the  octroi.,  if  you  can,  to  raise 
wages,  or  do  not  use  it  to  raise  the  price  of  com- 
modities. The  Parisians  do  not  ask  for  charity, 
but  justice. 

The  Peojfle.  Hurrah  for  justice  ! 

Pierre.  It  is  precisely  the  dearness  of  products 
which  will,  by  reflex  action,  raise  wages. 

The  People.    Hurrah  for  dearness  ! 

Jacques.  K  butter  is  dear,  it  is  not  because  you 
pay  workmen  well  ;  it  is  not  even  that  you  may 
make  great  profits  ;  it  is  only  because  Paris  is  ill 
situated  for  this  business,  and  because  you  desired 


THE    THREE    ALDERMEN.  287 

that  they  should  do  in  the  city  wliat  ought  to  be 
done  in  the  country,  and  in  the  country  what  was 
done  in  the  city.  The  people  have  no  more  labor, 
only  they  labor  at  something  else.  They  get  no 
more  wages,  but  they  do  not  buy  things  as  cheaply. 

The  People.   Hurrah  for  cheapness  ! 

Pierre.  This  person  seduces  you  with  his  fine 
words.  Let  us  state  the  question  plainly.  Is  it  not 
true  that  if  we  admit  butter,  wood,  and  meat,  we 
shall  be  inundated  with  them,  and  die  of  a  plethora  ? 
There  is,  then,  no  other  way  in  which  we  can  pre- 
serve ourselves  from  this  new  inundation,  than  to 
shut  the  door,  and  we  can  keep  up  the  price  of 
things  only  by  causing  scarcity  artificially. 

A    Very  Few  Yoices.   Hurrah  for  scarcity  ! 

Jacques.  Let  us  state  the  question  as  it  is. 
Among  all  the  Parisians  we  can  divide  only  what 
is  in  Paris  ;  the  less  wood,  butter,  and  meat  there 
is,  the  smaller  each  one's  share  will  be.  There  will 
be  less  if  we  exclude  than  if  we  admit.  Parisians, 
individual  abundance  can  exist  only  where  there  is 
general  abundance. 

The  People.   Hurrah  for  abundance  ! 

Pierre.  î^o  matter  what  this  man  says,  he  cannot 
prove  to  3^ou  that  it  is  to  your  interest  to  submit  to 
unbridled  competition. 

The  Peojyle.   Down  with  competition  ! 

Jacques.  Despite  all  this  man's  declamation,  he 
cannot  make  you  enjoy  the  sweets  of  restriction. 


288  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

The  People.   Down  with  kestriction  ! 

Pierre.  I  declare  to  you  that  if  the  poor  dealers 
in  cattle  and  hogs  are  deprived  of  their  livelihood, 
if  they  are  sacrificed  to  theories,  1  will  not  be  an- 
swerable for  public  order.  Workmen,  distrust  this 
man.  lie  is  an  agent  of  perfidious  Normandy  ;  ho 
is  under  the  pay  of  foreigners.  lie  is  a  traitor,  and 
must  be  hanged.     [The  people  keep  silent.] 

Jacques.  Parisians,  all  that  I  say  now,  1  said  to 
you  twenty  years  ago,  when  it  occurred  to  Pierre 
to  use  the  octroi  for  his  gain  and  your  loss.  I  am 
not  an  agent  of  Normandy.  Hang  me  if  you  will, 
but  this  will  not  prevent  oppression  from  being  op- 
pression. Friends,  you  must  kill  neither  Jacques 
nor  Pierre,  but  liberty  if  it  frightens  you,  or  re- 
striction if  it  hurts  you. 

The  People.  Let  us  hang  nobody,  but  let  us 
emancipate  everybody. 


XIV. 
something  else. 


-What  is  restriction  ? 
-A  partial  prohibition. 
-What  is  prohibition  ? 
-An  absolute  restriction. 


SOMETHING    ELSE.  289 

— So  that  what  is  said  of  one  is  true  of  the 
other  ? 

— ^Yes,  comparatively.  They  bear  the  same  rela- 
tion to  each  other  that  the  arc  of  the  circle  does  to 
the  circle. 

• — ^Then  if  prohibition  is  bad,  restriction  cannot 
be  good. 

— No  more  than  the  arc  can  be  straight  if  the 
circle  is  curved. 

— AYhat  is  the  common  name  for  restriction  and 
prohibition  ? 

— Protection. 

— What  is  the  definite  effect  of  protection  ? 

— To  require  from  men  harder  labor  for  the 
same  result. 

— Why  are  men  so  attached  to  the  protective 
system  ? 

— Because,  since  liberty  would  accomplish  the 
same  result  with  less  lahor,  this  apparent  diminu- 
tion of  labor  frightens  them. 

— Why  do  you  say  apparent  ? 

— Because  all  labor  economized  can  l)e  devoted 
to  soinething  else. 

—What  ? 

— That  cannot  and  need  not  1)0  determined. 

-Why  ? 

— Because,  if  the  total  of  the  comforts  of  France 
could  be  gained  with  a  diminution  of  one  tenth  on 
the  total  of  its  labor,  no  one  could  determine  what 


290  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

comforts  it  would  procure  witli  the  labor  remaining 
at  its  disposal.  One  person  would  prefer  to  be 
better  clothed,  another  better  fed,  another  better 
taught,  and  another  more  amused. 

— ^Explain  tlie  workings  and  effect  of  protection. 

— It  is  not  an  easy  matter.  Before  taking  hold 
of  a  complicated  instance,  it  must  be  studied  in  the 
simplest  one. 

—  Take  the  simplest  you  choose. 

— Do  you  recollect  how  Robinson  Crusoe,  having 
no  saw,  set  to  work  to  make  a  plank  ? 

— ^Yes.  Ile  cut  down  a  tree,  and  then  with  his 
axe  hewed  the  trunk  on  both  sides  until  he  got  it 
down  to  the  thickness  of  a  board. 

— And  that  gave  him  an  abundajice  of  work  ? 

— Fifteen  full  days. 

—What  did  he  live  on  during  this  time  ? 

— His  provisions. 

— What  happened  to  the  axe  ? 

—It  was  all  blunted. 

— Very  good  ;  but  there  is  one  thing  which,  per- 
haps, you  do  not  know.  At  the  moment  that 
Robinson  gave  the  first  blow  with  his  axe,  he  saw  a 
plank  which  the  waves  bad  cast  up  on  the  shore. 

— Oh,  the  lucky  accident  :  lie  ran  to  pick  it 
up  ? 

—It  was  his  first  impulse  ;  but  he  checked  him- 
self, reasoning  thus  : 


SOMETHING    ELSE.  291 

''  If  I  go  after  tliis  plank,  it  will  cost  nic  but  tlie 
labor  of  carrying  it  and  the  time  spent  in  going  to 
and  returning  from  the  shore. 

"  But  if  I  make  a  plank  with  my  axe,  1  shall  in 
the  first  place  obtain  work  for  fifteen  days,  then  I 
shall  wear  out  my  axe,  which  will  give  me  an  op- 
portunity of  repairing  it,  and  1  shall  consume  my 
provisions,  which  will  bo  a  third  source  of  labor, 
since  they  must  be  replaced.  Now,  laboi'  is 
wealth.  It  is  plain  that  I  will  ruin  myself  if  I  pick 
up  this  stranded  boarci.  It  is  important  to  protect 
my  personal  lahor^  and  now  that  I  think  of  it,  I  can 
create  myself  additional  labor  by  kicking  this  board 
back  into  the  sea.  " 

— But  this  reasoning  was  absurd  ! 

— Certainly.  Nevertheless  it  is  that  adopted  by 
every  nation  which  protects  itself  by  prohibition. 
It  rejects  the  plank  which  is  offered  it  in  exchange 
for  a  L'ttle  labor,  in  order  to  give  itself  more  labor. 
It  sees  a  gain  even  in  the  labor  of  the  custom-house 
officer.  This  answers  to  the  trouble  which  Bobin- 
son  took  to  give  back  to  the  waves  the  present  they 
wished  to  make  him.  Consider  the  nation  a  collec- 
tive being,  and  you  will  not  find  an  atom  of  differ- 
ence between  its  reasoning  and  that  of  Robinson. 

— Did  not  Robinson  see  that  he  could  use  the 
time  saved  in  doing  something  else  f 

— What  "  something  else'''  f 


292  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION . 

— So  long  as  one  lias  wants  and  time,  one  has 
2i\\v<\y?>  somethliKj  to  do.  1  am  not  bound  to  specify 
the  labor  that  he  could  undertake. 

— ^I  can  specify  v^ery  easily  that  which  he  would 
luive  avoided. 

— I  assert,  that  Robinson,  with  incredible  blind- 
ness, confounded  labor  with  its  result,  the  end  with 
the  means,  and  I  will  ]:)rove  it  to  you. 

• — ^It  is  not  necessary.  But  this  is  the  restrictive 
or  prohibitory  system  in  its  simplest  form.  If  it 
appears  absurd  to  you,  thus  s^ted,  it  is  because  the 
two  qualities  of  producer  and  consumer  are  here 
united  in  the  same  person. 

— Let  us  pass,  tlien,  to  a  more  complicated 
instance. 

— -Willingly.  Some  time  after  all  this,  Robinson 
having  met  Friday,  they  united,  and  began  to  work 
in  common.  They  hunted  for  six  hours  each  morn- 
ing and  brought  home  four  hampers  of  game. 
They  worked  in  the  garden  for  six  hours  each 
afternoon,  and  obtained  four  baskets  of  vegetables. 

One  day  a  canoe  touched  at  the  Island  of  De- 
spair. A  good-looking  stranger  landed,  and  was 
allowed  to  dine  with  our  two  hermits.  lie  tasted, 
and  praised  the  products  of  the  garden,  and  before 
taking  leave  of  his  hosts,  said  to  them  : 

"  Generous  Islanders,  I  dwell  in  a  country  much 
richer  in  game  than  this,  but  where  horticulture  is 
unknown.     It  would  be  easy  for  me  to  bring  you 


soMprniiNO  ELSE.  293 

every  evening  four  liampers  of  game  if  yon  wonld 
give  me  only  two  Ixiskets  of  vegetables." 

At  these  wcn-ds  Robinson  and  Friday  stepped  on 
one  side,  to  have  a  consultation,  and  the  debate 
which  followed  is  too  interesting  not  to  be  given  in 
extenso  : 

Friday.   Friend,  what  do  yon  think  of  it  ? 

Jiobhison.   If  we  accept,  we  are  ruined. 

Friday.   Is  that  certain  ?     Calculate  ! 

liohinfion.  It  is  all  calculated.  Hunting,  crushed 
out  by  competition,  will  be  a  lost  branch  of  indus- 
try for  us. 

Friday.  What  difference  does  that  make,  if  we 
liave  the  game  ? 

Robinson.  Theory  !  It  will  not  be  the  product 
of  our  labor. 

Friday.  Yes,  it  will,  since  we  will  have  to  give 
vegetables  to  get  it. 

Robinson.   Then  what  shall  we  make  ? 

Friday.  The  four  liampers  of  game  cost  us  six 
liours'  labor.  The  stranger  gives  them  to  us  for 
two  baskets  of  vegetables,  which  take  us  but  three 
lionrs.     Thus  three  hours  remain  at  our  disposal. 

Robinson.  Say  rather  that  they  are  taken  from 
our  activity.  There  is  our  loss.  Labor  is  wealth, 
and  if  we  lose  a  fourth  of  our  time  we  are  one 
fourth  poorer. 

Friday.  Friend,  you  make  an  enormous  mistake. 
The  same  amount  of  game  and  vegetables  and  three 


294:  SOPHISMS    OF    rROTECTION. 

free  hours  to  boot  make  progress,  or  there  is  none 
in  the  world. 

Robinson.  Mere  generalities.  What  will  we  do 
with  these  three  hours  ? 

Friday.  We  will  do  something  else. 

RoVmson.  Ah,  now  I  have  you.  You  can 
specify  nothing.  It  is  very  easy  to  say  something 
else — something  else. 

Friday.  We  will  fish.  We  will  adorn  our 
houses.     We  will  read  the  Bible. 

Robinson,  Utopia  !  Is  it  certain  that  we  will 
do  this  rather  than  that  ? 

Friday.  Well,  if  we  have  no  wants,  we  will  rest. 
Is  rest  nothing  ? 

Robinson.   When  one  rests  one  dies  of  hunger. 

Friday.  Friend,  you  are  in  a  vicious  circle.  I 
speak  of  a  rest  which  diminishes  neither  our  gains 
nor  our  vegetables.  You  always  forget  that  by 
means  of  our  commerce  with  this  stranger,  nine 
hours  of  labor  will  give  us  as  much  food  as  twelve 
now  do. 

Robinson.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  you  were  not 
reared  in  Europe.  Perhaps  you  have  never  read 
the  Moniteur  Industriel  ?  It  would  have  taught 
you  this  :  "  All  time  saved  is  a  dear  loss.  Eating 
is  not  the  important  matter,  but  working.  Noth- 
ing which  we  consume  counts,  if  it  is  not  the  prod- 
uct of  our  labor.  Do  you  wish  to  know  whether 
you  are  rich  ?     Do  not  look  at  your  comforts,  but 


SOMKTIIINO    KLSE.  295 

at  your  trouble.  '  '  This  is  wliat  the  Moniteur  Indus- 
triel would  have  tauiçht  you.  I,  who  am  not  a  theo- 
rist, see  but  the  loss  of  our  hunting. 

Friday.  What  a  strange  perversion  of  ideas. 
But— 

Robinson.  No  })uts.  Besides,  there  are  political 
reasons  for  rejecting  the  interested  offers  of  this 
perfidious  stranger. 

Friday.   Political  reasons  ! 

liohinson.  Yes.  In  the  first  place,  he  makes 
these  offers  only  because  they  are  for  his  advan- 
tage. 

Friday.  So  much  the  better,  since  they  are  for 
ours  also. 

liohinson.  Then  by  these  exchanges  we  shall  be- 
come dependent  on  him. 

Friday.  And  he  on  us.  We  need  his  game,  he 
our  vegetables,  and  we  will  live  in  good  friend- 
ship. 

liohinson.  Fancy  !  Do  you  want  I  should  leave 
you  without  an  answer  ? 

Friday.  Let  us  see  ;  I  am  still  waiting  a  good 
reason. 

liohinson.  Supposing  that  the  stranger  learns  to 
cultiv£fte  a  garden,  and  that  his  island  is  more  fer- 
tile than  ours.     Do  you  see  the  consequences  ? 

Friday.  Yes.  Our  relations  with  the  stranger 
will  stop.  He  will  take  no  more  vegetables  from 
us,  since  he  can  get  them  at  home  with  less  trouble. 


206  SOPHISMS    OF   PKOTECTION. 

lie  will  briiiijç  lis  no  iiiore  game,  since  we  will  luu^e 
nothing  to  give  in  exeliange,  and  we  will  bo  then 
just  where  you  want  us  to  be  now. 

TiohinsoJi.  Short-siglited  savage  !  You  do  not 
see  that  after  having  destroyed  our  hunting,  by  in- 
undating lis  with  game,  he  will  kill  our  gardening 
by  overwhelming  us  with  vegetables. 

Friday.  But  he  will  do  that  only  so  long  as  we 
give  him  sometldng  else  j  that  is  to  say,  so  long  as 
we  find  something  else  to  produce,  which  will  econ- 
omize our  labor. 

lioJnnson.  Soviething  else — something  else  !  You 
always  come  back  to  that.  You  are  very  vague, 
friend  Friday  ;  there  is  nothing  ])ractical  in  your 
views. 

The  contest  lasted  a  long  time,  and,  as  often  hap- 
pens, left  each  one  convinced  that  he  was  right. 
However,  llobinson  having  great  influence  over 
Friday,  his  views  prevailed,  and  when  the  stranger 
came  for  an  answer,  Robinson  said  to  him  : 

"  Stranger,  in  order  that  your  proposition  may 
be  accepted,  we  must  be  quite  sure  of  two  things  : 

"  The  first  is,  that  your  island  is  not  richer  in 
game  than  ours,  for  we  will  struggle  but  with  equal 
arms. 

"  The  second  is,  that  you  will  lose  by  the  bar- 
gain. For,  as  in  every  exchange  there  is  necessa- 
rily a  gainer  and  a  loser,  we  would  be  cheated,  if 
you  were  not.     What  have  you  to  say  ?" 


SOMETHING    ELSE.  297 

^'  Nothing,  nothing,"  reph'ed  tlie  stranger,  who 
burst  out  laughing,  and  returned  to  his  canoe. 

—The  story  would  not  be  bad  if  Robinson  was 
not  so  foolish. 

— Tie  is  no  more  so  than  the  committee  in  Haute- 
ville  Street. 

— Oh,  there  is  a  great  difference.  You  suppose 
one  solitary  man,  or,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing, 
two  men  living  together.  This  is  not  our  world  ; 
the  diversity  of  occupations,  and  the  intervention 
of  merchants  and  money,  change  the  question  mate- 
rially. 

— AU  this  complicates  transactions,  but  does  not 
change  their  nature. 

— What  !  Do  you  propose  to  compare  modern 
commerce  to  mere  exchanges  ? 

— Commerce  is  but  a  multitude  of  exchanges  ; 
the  real  nature  of  the  exchange  is  identical  with  the 
real  nature  of  commerce,  as  small  labor  is  of  the 
same  nature  with  great,  and  as  the  gravitation 
which  impels  an  atom  is  of  the  same  nature  as  that 
which  attracts  a  world. 

— Thus,  according  to  you,  these  arguments, 
which  in  Robinson's  mouth  are  so  false,  are  no  less 
so  in  the  mouths  of  our  protectionists  ? 

— Yes  ;  only  error  is  hidden  better  under  the 
complication  of  circumstances. 

— Well,  now,  select  some  instance  from  what  has 
actually  occurred. 


298  SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION. 

— Very  well  ;  iu  France,  in  view  of  custom  and 
the  exigencies  of  the  climate,  cloth  is  a  useful  arti- 
cle. Is  it  the  essential  thing  to  make  it,  or  to  have 
it? 

— A  pretty  question  !  To  have  it,  we  must 
make  it. 

— That  is  not  necessary.  It  is  certain  that  to 
liave  it  some  one  must  make  it  ;  but  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  the  person  or  country  using  it  should  make 
it.  You  did  not  produce  that  which  clothes  you  so 
well,  nor  France  the  coffee  it  uses  for  breakfast, 

— But  I  purchased  my  cloth,  and  France  its 
coffee. 

— Exactly,  and  with  wliat  '{ 

— Witli  specie. 

— But  you  did  not  make  the  specie,  nor  did 
France. 

— We  bought  it, 

—With  wiiat  ? 

—With  our  products  w^hich  went  to  Peru. 

— 'Then  it  is  in  reality  your  labor  that  you  ex- 
change for  cloth,  and  French  labor  that  is  ex- 
clianged  for  coffee  ? 

—  Certainly. 

— Then  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  make 
what  one  consumes  ? 

—  x^o,  if  one  makes  soinetliing  else,  and  gives  it 
in  exchange. 

—In  other  words,  France  has  two  ways  of  pro- 


SOMETHING    ELSE.  299 

curing  a  given  quantity  of  cloth.  The  first  is  to 
make  it,  and  the  second  is  to  make  sometldng  else^ 
and  excliange  t]tat  something  else  abroad  for  cloth. 
Of  these  two  ways,  which  is  the  best  ? 

— I  do  not  know. 

— Is  it  not  that  which,  for  a  fixed  ajnoxmt  of 
labor,  gives  the  greatest  quantity  of  cloth  f 

— It  seems  so. 

— Which  is  best  for  a  nation,  to  have  the  choice 
of  these  two  ways,  or  to  have  the  law  forbid  its 
using  one  of  them  at  the  risk  of  rejecting  the  best  ? 

— It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  best  for  the 
nation  to  have  the  choice,  since  in  these  matters  it 
always  makes  a  good  selection. 

— The  law  which  prohibits  the  introduction  of 
foreign  cloth,  decides,  then,  that  if  France  wants 
cloth,  it  must  make  it  at  home,  and  that  it  is  for- 
bidden to  make  that  something  else  with  which  it 
could  purchase  foreign  cloth  ? 

— That  is  true. 

— And  as  it  is  obliged  to  make  cloth,  and  forbid- 
den to  make  something  else,  just  because  the  other 
thing  would  require  less  labor  (without  which 
France  would  have  no  occasion  to  do  anything  with 
it),  the  law  virtually  decrees,  that  for  a  certain 
amount  of  labor,  France  shall  have  but  one  yard  of 
cloth,  making  it  itself,  when,  for  the  same  amount 
of  labor,  it  could  have  had  two  yards,  by  making 
something  else. 


300  SOPHISMS  OF  i'kotkction. 

— ]>ut  what  other  thing  ? 

— No  matter  what.  Being  free  to  choose,  it  will 
make  something  else  only  so  long  as  there  is  soirie- 
ihlng  else  to  make. 

— That  is  possible  ;  but  I  cannot  rid  myself  of 
the  idea  that  the  foreigners  may  send  lis  cloth  and 
not  take  something  else,  in  which  case  we  shall  be 
prettily  caught.  Under  all  circumstances,  this  is  the 
objection,  even  from  your  own  point  of  view.  You 
admit  that  France  will  make  this  something  else, 
which  is  to  be  exchanged  for  cloth,  with  less  labor 
than  if  it  had  made  the  cloth  itself  i 

— Doubtless. 

— Then  a  certain  quantity  of  its  labor  will  be- 
come inert  ? 

— Yes  ;  but  people  will  be  no  worse  clothed — a 
little  circumstance  which  causes  the  whole  misun- 
derstanding. Robinson  lost  sight  of  it,  and  our 
protectionists  do  not  see  it,  or  pretend  not  to.  The 
stranded  plank  thus  paralyzed  for  fifteen  days 
Robinson's  labor,  so  far  as  it  was  applied  to  the 
making  of  a  plank,  but  it  did  not  deprive  him  of  it. 
Distinguish,  then,  between  these  two  kinds  of 
diminution  of  labor,  one  resulting  in privatio^i,  and 
the  other  in  comfort.  These  two  things  are  very 
different,  and  if  you  assimilate  them,  you  reason 
like  Robinson.  In  the  most  complicated,  as  in  the 
most  simple  instances,  the  sophism  consists  in  this  : 
Judging  of  the  utility  of  labor  hy  its  duration  and 


IJTTLK    ARSENAL    OF    THK    FUEE    TRADER.         3(>1 

intensity,  and  not  hy  its  results,  wliicli  leads  to  this 
economic  policy,  a  redtiction  of  the  results  of  labor, 
in  order  to  increase  its  duration  and  intensity. 


XV. 

THE    EÎTTLE    ARSENAL    OF    THE    FREE    TRADER. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  There  are  no  absolute 
principles  ;  prohibition  may  be  bad,  and  restriction 
good  — 

Reply  :  llestriction  'prohihlts  all  that  it  keeps 
from  coming  in. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Agriculture  is  the  nursing 
mother  of  the  country — 

Reply  :  That  which  feeds  a  country  is  not  ex- 
actly agriculture,  but  grain. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  basis  of  the  suste- 
nance of  the  peojDle  is  agriculture — 

Reply  :  The  basis  of  the  sustenance  of  the  peo- 
jile  is  grain.  Thus  a  law  which  causes  tv^o  bushels 
of  grain  to  be  obtained  by  agricultural  labor  at  the 
expense  of  four  bushels,  which  the  same  labor 
would  have  produced  but  for  it,  far  from  being  a 
law  of  sustenance,  is  a  law  of  starvation. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  A  restriction  on  the  admis- 
sion of  foreign  grain  leads  to  more  cultivation,  and, 
consequently,  to  a  greater  home  production — 


302  SOPHISMS    OF    I'ROTECTION. 

Reply  :  It  loads  to  sowing  on  the  rocks  of  the 
mountains  and  the  sands  of  the  sea.  To  milk  and 
steadily  milk,  a  cow  gives  more  milk  ;  for  who  can 
tell  the  moment  when  not  a  drop  more  can  be  ob- 
tained ?     But  the  drop  costs  dear. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Let  bread  be  dear,  and  the 
wealthy  farmer  will  enrich  the  artisans — 

Reply  :  Bread  is  dear  when  there  is  little  of  it,  a 
thing  which  can  make  but  poor,  or,  if  you  please, 
rich  people  who  are  starving. 

— If  they  insist  on  it,  saying  :  "When  food  is 
dear,  wages  rise  — 

Reply  by  showing  that  in  April,  1847,  five  sixths 
of  the  workingmen  were  beggars. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  profits  of  the  working- 
men  must  rise  with  the  dearness  of  food — 

Reply  :  This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  in  an 
miprovisioned  vessel  everybody  has  the  same  num- 
ber of  biscuits  whether  he  has  any  or  not. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  A  good  price  must  be 
secured  for  those  who  sell  grain — 

Reply  :  "  Certainly  ;  but  good  wages  must  be 
secured  to  those  who  buy  it. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  land -owners,  who 
make  the  law,  have  raised  the  price  of  food  without 
troubling  themselves  about  wages,  because  they 
know  that  when  food  becomes  dear,  wages  natural- 
ly rise — 

Reply  :    On  this  principle,   when    workingmen 


li'itlp:  arsenal  of  the  ekee  trader.      303 

come  to  make  the  law,  do  not  blame  them  if  they 
fix  a  high  rate  of  wages  without  troubling  them- 
selves to  protect  grain,  for  they  know  that  if  wages 
are  raised,  articles  of  food  will  naturally  rise  in 
price. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  What,  then,  is  to  be  done  ? 

Eeply  :  Be  just  to  everybody. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  It  is  essential  that  a  great 
country  should  manufacture  iron — 

Reply  :  The  most  essential  thing  is  that  this 
great  country  should  leave  iron. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  It  is  necessai-y  that  a  great 
country  should  manufacture  cloth. 

Reply  :  It  is  more  necessarj''  that  the  citizens  of 
this  great  country  should  have  cloth. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Labor  is  wealth — 

Reply  :  It  is  false. 

And,  by  way  of  developing  this,  add  :  A  bleed- 
ing is  not  health,  and  the  proof  of  it  is,  that  it  is 
done  to  restore  health. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  To  compel  men  to  work 
over  rocks  and  get  an  ounce  of  iron  from  a  ton  of 
ore,  is  to  increase  their  labor,  and,  consequently, 
their  wealth  — 

Reply  :  To  compel  men  to  dig  wells,  by  deny- 
ing them  the  use  of  river  water,  is  to  add  to  their 
useless  labor,  but  not  their  wealth. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  sun  gives  his  heat  and 
light  witliout  requiring  remuneration — 


304  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Reply  :  So  much  the  better  for  me,  since  it  costs 
me  nothin<;  to  see  distinctly. 

— x\nd  if  they  reply  to  you  :  Industry  in  general 
loses  what  you  would  have  paid  for  lights — 

Kctort  :  No,  for  having  paid  nothing  to  the  sun, 
I  use  that  which  it  saves  me  in  paying  for  clothes, 
furniture,  and  candles. 

— So,  if  they  say  to  you  :  These  English  rascals 
have  capital  which  pays  them  nothing — 

Reply  :  So  much  the  better  for  us  ;  they  will  not 
make  us  pay  interest. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  These  perfidious  English- 
men find  iron  and  coal  at  the  same  spot — 

Reply  :  So  much  the  better  for  us  ;  they  will  not 
make  us  pay  anything  for  bringing  them  together. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  Swiss  have  rich  past- 
ures which  cost  little — 

Reply  :  The  advantage  is  on  our  side,  for  they 
will  ask  for  a  lesser  quantity  of  our  labor  to  furnish 
our  farmers  oxen  and  our  stomachs  food. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  lands  in  the  Crimea 
are  worth  nothing,  and  pay  no  taxes — 

Reply  :  The  gain  is  on  our  side,  since  we  buy 
grain  free  from  those  charges. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  serfs  of  Poland  work 
without  wages — 

Reply  :  The  loss  is  theirs  and  the  gain  is  ours, 
since  their  labor  is  deducted  from  the  price  of  the 
grain  which  their  masters  sell  us. 


r 


LITTLE    ARSENAL    OF    THE    FREE    TRADER.        305 

— Then,  if  tliey  say  to  you  :  Otlier  nations  have 
many  advantages  over  \m — 

Keply  :  By  exchange,  they  are  forced  to  let  ns 
share  in  them. 

-—If  they  say  to  you  :  Witli  liberty  we  shall  be 
swamped  with  bread,  beef  a  la  lyiode,  coal,  and 
coats — 

Reply  :  We  shall  be  neither  cold  nor  hungry. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  With  what  shall  we  pay  ? 

Reply  :  Do  not  be  troubled  about  that.  If  we 
are  to  be  inundated,  it  will  be  because  we  are  able 
to  pay.  If  we  cannot  pay  we  will  not  be  inun- 
dated. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  I  would  allow  free  trade, 
if  a  stranger,  in  bringing  us  one  thing,  toci^  away 
another  ;  but  he  will  carry  off  our  specie — 

Reply  :  Neither  specie  nor  coffee  grows  in  the 
fields  of  Beauce  or  come  out  of  the  manufactories 
of  Elbeuf.  For  us  to  pay  a  foreigner  with  specie 
is  like  paying  him  with  coffee. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Eat  meat — 

Reply  :  Let  it  come  in. 

— If  they  say  to  you,  like  the  Presm  :  When 
you  have  not  the  money  to  buy  bread  with,  buy 
beef — 

Reply  :  This  advice  is  as  wise  as  that  of  Vautour 
to  his  tenant,  "  If  a  person  has  not  money  to  pay 
his  rent  with,  he  ought  to  have  a  house  of  his 
own." 


306  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

— If  they  say  to  jou,  like  tlio  Presse  :  The  State 
ought  to  teach  the  people  wliy  and  how  it  should 
eat  meat — • 

Reply  :  Only  let  the  State  allow  the  meat  free 
entrance,  and  the  most  civilized  people  in  the  world 
are  old  enough  to  learn  to  eat  it  without  any 
teacher. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  The  State  ought  to  know 
everything,  and  foresee  everything,  to  guide  the 
people,  and  the  people  have  only  to  let  themselves 
be  guided — 

Reply  :  Is  there  a  State  outside  of  the  people, 
and  a  human  foresight  outside  of  humanity  ?  A.rchi- 
medes  might  have  repeated  all  the  days  of  his  life, 
*'  With  a  lever  and  a  fulcrum  I  will  move  the 
world,"  but  he  could  not  have  moved  it,  for  want  of 
those  two  things.  The  fulcrum  of  the  State  is  the 
nation,  and  nothing  is  madder  than  to  build  so  many 
hopes  on  the  State  ;  that  is  to  say,  to  assume  a  col- 
lective science  and  foresiglit,  after  having  estab- 
lished individual  folly  and  shortsightedness. 

If  they  say  to  you  :  My  God  !  I  ask  no  favors, 
but  only  a  duty  on  grain  and  meat,  which  may  com- 
j)ensate  for  the  heavy  taxes  to  which  France  is  sub- 
jected ;  a  mere  little  duty,  equal  to  what  these  taxes 
add  to  the  cost  of  my  grain — 

Reply  :  A  thousand  pardons,  but  I,  too,  pay 
taxes.  If,  then,  the  protection  which  you  vote 
yourself  results  in  burdening  for  me,  your  grain 


LITTLE    ARSENAL    OF    THE    FREE    TRADER.        307 

with  your  2>roportion  of  tlie  taxes,  your  insinuating 
demand  aims  at  nothing  less  than  the  establishment 
between  us  of  the  following  arrangement,  thus 
worded  by  yourself  :  "  Since  the  public  burdens  are 
heavy,  I,  who  sell  grain,  will  pay  nothing  at  all  ; 
and  you,  my  neighbor,  the  buyer,  shall  pay  two 
parts,  to  wit,  your  sliare  and  mine.'"  My  neigh- 
bor, the  grain  dealer,  you  nuiy  have  power  on  your 
side,  but  not  reason. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  It  is,  however,  very  hard 
for  me,  a  tax-jja^'er,  to  compete  in  my  own  market 
with  foreigners  who  pay  none — 

Reply  :  First,  This  is  not  your  market,  but  our 
market.  I  who  live  on  grain,  and  pay  for  it,  nmst 
be  counted  for  something. 

Secondly.  Few  foreigners  at  this  time  are  free 
from  taxes. 

Thirdly.  If  the  tax  which  you  vote  repays  to 
you,  in  roads,  canals,  and  safety,  more  than  it  costs 
you,  you  are  not  justitied  in  driving  away,  at  my 
expense,  the  competition  of  foreigners  who  do  not 
pay  the  tax,  but  who  do  not  have  the  safety,  roads, 
and  canals.  It  is  the  same  as  saying  :  I  want  a 
compensating  duty,  because  I  have  fine  clothes, 
stronger  horses,  and  better  ploughs  than  the  Russian 
laborer. 

Fourthly.  If  the  tax  does  not  repay  what  it  costs, 
do  not  vote  it. 

Fifthly.     If,  after  you  have    v^oted  a  tax,  it  is 


308  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

your  pleasure  to  escape  its  operation,  invent  a  sys- 
tem which  will  throw  it  on  foreigners.  But  the 
tariff  only  throws  your  proportion  on  me,  when  I 
already  have  enough  of  ray  own. 

— If  they  say  to  yon  :  Freedom  of  commerce  is 
necessary  among  the  Russians  that  they  Tnay  ex- 
cluwge  their  products  with  advantage  (opinion  of 
M.  Thiers,  April,  1847)— 

Reply  :  This  freedom  is  necessary  everywhere, 
and  for  the  same  reason. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Each  country  has  its 
wants  ;  it  is  according  to  that  tliat  it  inust  act  (M. 
Thiers)— 

Reply  :  It  is  according  to  that  that  it  acts  of  it- 
self when  no  one  hinders  it. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Since  we  have  no  sheet- 
iron,  its  admission  must  be  allowed  (M.  Thiers) — 

Reply  :  Thank  you,  kindly. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Onr  merchant  marine 
must  have  freight  ;  owing  to  the  lack  of  return 
cargoes  our  vessels  cannot  compete  with  foreign 
ones — 

Reply  :  "When  3'ou  want  to  do  everything  at 
home,  you  can  have  cargoes  neither  going  nor  com- 
ing. It  is  as  absurd  to  wish  for  a  navy  under  a  pro- 
hibitory system  as  to  wish  for  carts  where  all  trans- 
portation is  forbidden. 

— If  they  say  to  you  :  Supposing  that  protection 
is  unjust,  everything  is  founded  on  it  ;  there  are 


THE    EIGHT    AND    THE    LEFT    HAND.  309 

moneys  invested,  and  rii^lits  acquired,  and  it  cannot 
be  abandoned  without  sufferint^ — 

Keply  :  Every  injustice  profits  some  one  (except, 
perhaps,  restriction,  which  in  the  long  run  profits 
no  one),  and  to  use  as  an  argument  the  disturbance 
wliich  the  cessation  of  the  injustice  causes  to  the 
person  profiting  by  it,  is  to  say  that  an  injustice, 
only  because  it  has  existed  for  a  moment,  should  be 
eternal. 


XVL 

THE    EIGHT    AND    THE    LEFT    HAND. 
[Report  to  the  King.] 

SiEE  :  When  w^e  see  these  men  of  the  Libre 
Echange  audaciously  disseminating  their  doctrines, 
and  maintaining  that  the  right  of  buying  and 
selHng  is  implied  by  that  of  ownership  (a  piece  of 
insolence  that  M.  Billault  has  criticised  like  a  true 
lawyer),  we  may  be  allowed  to  entertain  serious 
fears  as  to  the  destiny  of  national  lalwr  /  for  what 
will  Frenchmen  do  with  their  arms  and  intelligence 
when  they  are  free  ? 

The  Ministry  which  you  have  honored  with  your 
confidence  has  naturally  paid  great  attention  to  so 


310  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION, 

serious  a  subject,  and  lias  sought  in  its  wisdom  for 
a  protection  which  might  be  substituted  for  that 
wliicli  appears  compromised.  It  proposes  to  you  to 
forbid  your  faithful  subjects  the  use  of  the  right 
hand. 

Sire,  do  not  wrong  us  so  far  as  to  think  that  we 
h'ghtly  adopted  a  measure  which,  at  the  first  glance 
may  appear  odd.  Deep  study  of  the  protective 
system  has  revealed  to  us  this  syllogism,  on  which 
it  entirely  rests  : 

The  more  one  labors,  the  richer  one  is. 

The  more  difficulties  one  has  to  conquer,  the 
more  one  labors. 

JErgo,  the  more  difficulties  one  has  to  conquer, 
the  richer  one  is. 

What  is  protection,  really,  but  an  ingenious  ap- 
plication of  this  formal  reasoning,  which  is  so  com- 
pact that  it  would  resist  the  subtlety  of  M.  Billault 
himself  ? 

Let  us  personify  the  country.  Let  us  look  on  it 
as  a  collective  being,  with,  thirty  million  mouths, 
and,  consequently,  sixty  million  arms.  This  being 
makes  a  clock,  which  he  proposes  to  exchange  in 
Belgium  for  ten  quintals  of  iron.  "  But,"  we  say  to 
him,  "  make  the  iron  yourself."  "  I  cannot,"  says 
he  ;  "it  would  take  me  too  much  time,  and  I  could 
not  make  five  quintals  while  I  can  make  one  clock.'  ' 
"  ITtopist  !"  we  reply  ;  "  for  this  very  reason  we 
forbid  your  making  the  clock,  and   order  you  to 


THE    RIGHT    AND   THE    LEFT    HAND.  311 

make  the  iron.  Do  not  yon  see  that  we  create  you 
labor?" 

Sire,  it  will  not  have  escaped  your  sagacity,  that 
it  is  just  as  if  we  said  to  the  country,  Lahor  with 
the  left  hand  and  not  loith  the  right. 

The  creation  of  obstacles  to  furnish  labor  an  op- 
portunity to  develop  itself,  is  the  principle  of  the 
restriction  which  is  dying.  It  is  also  the  principle 
of  the  restriction  which  is  about  to  be  created. 
Sire,  to  make  such  regulations  is  not  to  innovate, 
but  to  preserve. 

The  efficacy  of  the  measure  is  incontestable.  It 
is  difficult — much  more  difficult  than  one  thinks — 
to  do  with  the  left  hand  wdiat  one  w^as  accustomed 
to  do  with  the  right.  You  will  convince  yourself 
of  it.  Sire,  if  you  will  condescend  to  try  our  system 
on  something  which  is  familiar  to  you — like  shuf- 
fling cards,  for  instance.  We  can  then  flatter  our- 
selves that  we  have  opened  an  illimitable  career  to 
labor. 

When  workmen  of  all  kinds  are  reduced  lo  their 
left  hands,  consider,  Sire,  the  immense  number  that 
will  be  required  to  meet  the  present  consumption, 
supposing  it  to  be  invariable,  which  we  always  do 
when  we  compare  differing  systems  of  production. 
So  prodigious  a  demand  for  manual  labor  cannot 
fail  to  bring  about  a  considerable  increase  in  wages  ; 
and  pauperism  will  disappear  from  the  country  as 
if  by  enchantment. 


312  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Sire,  your  paternal  heart  will  rejoice  at  tlie 
thoutrht  that  the  benefits  of  this  reo^ulation  will 
extend  over  that  interesting  portion  of  the  great 
family  whose  fate  excites  your  liveliest  solicitude. 

"What  is  the  destiny  of  women  in  France  ?  Tliat 
sex  which  is  the  boldest  and  most  hardened  to 
fatigue,  is,  insensibly,  driving  them  from  all  fields 
of  labor. 

Formerly  they  found  a  refuge  in  the  lottery 
offices.  These  have  been  closed  by  a  pitiless 
philanthropy  ;  and  under  what  pretext  ?  "To 
save,"  said  they,  "  the  money  of  the  poor."  Alas  ! 
has  a  poor  man  ever  obtained  from  a  piece  of 
money  enjoyments  as  sweet  and  innocent  as  those 
which  the  mysterious  urn  of  fortune  contained  for 
him  ?  Cut  off  from  all  the  sweets  of  life,  how 
many  delicious  hours  did  he  introduce  into  the 
bosom  of  his  family  when,  ever}'  two  weeks,  he  put 
the  value  of  a  day's  labor  on  a  quatern.  Hope  had 
always  her  place  at  the  domestic  hearth.  The  gar- 
ret was  peopled  with  illusions  ;  the  wife  promised 
herself  that  she  would  eclipse  her  neighbors  with 
the  splendor  of  her  attire  ;  the  son  saw  himself 
drum-major,  and  the  daughter  felt  herself  carried 
toward  the  altar  in  the  arms  of  her  betrothed.  To 
have  a  beautiful  dream  is  certainly  something. 

The  lottery  was  the  poetry  of  the  poor,  and  we 
have  allowed  it  to  escape  them. 

The  lottery  dead,  what  means  have  we  of  pro- 


TUK    RIGHT    AND    THE    LEFT    HAND.  313 

riding  for  oiir  j)rotégés  f —tohsiGCO,  and  tiie  postal 
service. 

Tobacco,  certainly  ;  it  progresses,  thanks  to 
Heaven,  and  the  distinguished  liabits  whicii  august 
examples  have  been  enabled  to  introduce  among  our 
elegant  youth. 

But  the  postal  service  !  We  will  say  nothing  of 
that,  but  make  it  the  subject  of  a  special  report. 

Then  what  is  left  to  your  female  subjects  except 
tobacco  ?  Nothing,  except  embroidery,  knitting, 
and  sewing,  pitiful  resources,  which  are  more  and 
more  restricted  by  that  barbarous  science,  me- 
chanics. 

But  as  soon  as  your  ordinance  has  appeareq  as 
soon  as  the  right  hands  are  cut  off  or  tied  up,  every- 
thing will  change  face.  Twenty,  thirty  times  more 
embroiderers,  washers  and  ironers,  seamstresses  and 
shirt-makers,  would  not  meet  the  consumption 
{ho7ii  sait  qui  mal  y  pense)  of  the  kingdom  ;  always 
assuming  that  it  is  invariable,  according  to  our  way 
of  reasoning. 

It  is  true  that  this  supposition  might  be  denied 
by  cold-blooded  tlieorists,  for  dresses  and  shirts 
would  be  dearer.  But  they  say  the  same  thing  of 
the  iron  which  France  gets  from  our  mines,  com- 
pared to  the  vintage  it  could  get  on  our  hillsides. 
This  argument  can,  therefore,  Ije  no  more  enter- 
tained  against  left-handedness  than  against  protec- 
tion ',  iox  this  very  dearness  is  the  result  and  the 


314  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

sign  of  the  excess  of  efforts  and  of  labors,  which  is 
precisely  tlie  basis  on  which,  in  one  case,  as  in  the 
other,  we  claim  to  found  the  prosperity  of  the 
working  classes. 

Yes,  wo  make  a  touching  picture  of  the  pros- 
perity of  the  sewing  business.  What  movement  ! 
What  acti/ity  !  What  Hfe  !  Each  dress  will  bu^^y 
a  hundred  fingers  instead  of  ten.  No  longer  will 
there  be  an  idle  young  girl,  and  we  need  not,  Sire, 
point  out  to  your  perspicacity  the  moral  results  of 
this  great  revolution.  Not  only  will  there  be  more 
women  employed,  but  each  one  of  them  Avill  earn 
more,  for  they  caimot  meet  the  demand,  and  if 
competition  still  shows  itself,  it  will  no  longer  be 
among  the  working  women  who  make  the  dresses, 
but  the  beautiful  ladies  who  wear  them. 

You  see.  Sire,  that  our  proposition  is  not  only 
confoi'mable  to  the  economic  traditions  of  the 
government,  but  it  is  also  essentially  moral  and 
democratic. 

To  appreciate  its  effect,  let  us  suppose  it  realized  ; 
let  us  transport  ourselves  in  thought  into  the 
future  ;  let  us  imagine  the  system  in  action  for 
twenty  years.  Idleness  is  banished  from  the  coun- 
try ;  ease  and  concord,  contentment  and  morality, 
have  entered  all  families  together  with  labor  ;  there 
is  no  more  misery  and  no  more  prostitution.  The 
'eft  hand  l)eing  vevy  clumsy  at  its  work,  there  is  a 
superabundance  of  labor,  and  the  pny  is  satisfactory. 


THE    RIGFIT    AND   THE    LEFT    HAND.  315 

Everytliing  is  based  on  this,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
the  workshops  are  filled.  Is  it  not  true,  Sire,  that 
if  Utopians  were  to  suddenly  demand  the  freedom 
of  the  right  hand,  thsj  would  spread  aharm  through- 
out the  country  ?  Is  it  not  true  that  this  pretended 
reform  would  overthrow  all  existences  ?  Then  our 
system  is  good,  since  it  cannot  be  overthrown  with- 
out causing  great  distress. 

However,  we  have  a  sad  presentiment  that  some 
day  (so  great  is  the  perversity  of  man)  an  association 
will  be  organized  to  secure  the  liberty  of  right  hands. 

It  seems  to  us  that  we  already  hear  these  free- 
right-handers  speak  as  follows  in  the  Salle  Montes- 
quieu : 

"  People,  you  believe  yourselves  richer  because 
they  have  taken  from  you  one  hand  ;  you  see  but 
the  increase  of  labor  which  results  to  you  from  it. 
But  look  also  at  the  dearness  it  causes,  and  the 
forced  decrease  in  the  consumption  of  all  articles. 
This  measure  has  not  made  capital,  which  is  the 
source  of  wages,  more  abundant.  The  waters  which 
flow  from  this  great  reservoir  are  directed  into  other 
channels  ;  the  quantity  is  not  increased,  and  the 
definite  result  is,  for  the  nation,  as  a  whole,  a  loss 
of  comfort  equal  to  the  excess  of  the  production  of 
several  millions  of  right  hands,  over  several  millions 
of  left  hands.  Then  let  us  form  a  league,  and,  at 
the  expense  of  some  inevitable  disturbances,  let  us 
conquer  the  right  of  working  with  both  hands." 


316  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

Happily,  Sire,  there  will  be  organized  an  associa- 
tion for  'the  defence  of  left-handed  laJ)0/\  and  the 
Slnistrlsts  will  have  no  trouble  in  reducing  to 
nothing  all  these  generalities  and  realities,  supposi- 
tions and  abstractions,  reveries  and  Utopias.  They 
need  only  to  exhume  the  Moniteur  Industriel  of 
1846,  and  they  will  find,  ready-made,  arguments 
against y/'ce  trade,  which  destroy  so  admirably  this 
liberty  of  the  rigid  hand,  that  all  that  is  required  is 
to  substitute  one  word  for  another. 

"  The  Parisian  Free- Trade  League  never  doubted 
but  that  it  would  have  the  assistance  of  the 
workingmen.  But  the  workingmen  can  no  longer 
be  led  by  the  nose.  They  have  their  eyes  open, 
and  they  know  political  economy  better  than  our 
diplomaed  professors.  Free  trade,  they  replied, will 
take  from  us  our  labor,  and  labor  is  our  real,  great, 
sovereign  property  ;  with  labor,  with  much  lahor,  the 
price  of  articles  of  merchandise  is  never  beyond 
7'each.  But  without  labor,  even  if  bread  should 
cost  but  a  penny  a  pound,  the  workingman  is  com- 
pelled to  die  of  hunger.  ]^ow,  your  doctrines, 
instead  of  increasing  the  amount  of  labor  in 
France,  diminish  it  ;  that  is  to  say,  you  reduce  us 
to  misery."    (Number  of  October  13th,  1816.) 

"It  is  true,  that  when  there  are  too  many  manu- 
factured articles  to  sell,  their  price  falls  ;  but  as 
wages  decrease  when  these  articles  sink  in  value, 
the    result   is,  that,    instead  of  being  able  to  buy 


THE    RIGHT    AND    THE    LEFT    HAND.  317 

them,  we  can  bu}'  nothing.  Thus,  when  tliey  are 
cheapest,  tlie  workingnian  is  most  unliappy." 
(Gauthier  de  Rumilly,  Moniteur  Industriel  of  No- 
vember 17.) 

It  would  not  be  ill  for  the  Sinistrists  to  mingle 
some  threats  with  their  beautiful  theories.  This  is 
a  sample  : 

"What!  to  desire  to  substitute  the  labor  of  the 
right  hand  for  that  of  the  left,  and  thus  to  cause  a 
forced  reduction,  if  not  an  annihilation  of  wages, 
the  sole  resource  of  almost  the  entire  nation  ! 

"  And  this  at  the  moment  when  poor  harvests 
already  impose  painful  sacrihces  on  the  working- 
man,  disquiet  him  as  to  his  future,  and  make  him 
more  accessible  to  bad  counsels  and  ready  to  aban- 
don the  wise  course  of  conduct  he  had  hitherto 
adhered  to  !  " 

We  are  confident.  Sire,  that  thanks  to  such  wise 
reasonings,  if  a  struggle  takes  place,  the  left  hand 
will  come  out  of  it  victorious. 

Perhaps,  also,  an  association  will  be  formed  in 
order  to  ascertain  whether  the  right  and  the  left 
hand  are  not  both  wrong,  and  if  there  is  not  a  third 
hand  between  them,  in  order  to  conciliate  all. 

After  having  described  the  Dexterists  as  seduced 
by  the  ajJjMreoit  liberality  of  a  princij^le,  the  correct 
ness  of  which  has  not  yet  been  verified  by  experience, 
and  the  Sinistrists  as  encamping  in  the  positions  they 
have  gained,  it  will  say  : 


318  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

"And  yet  they  deny  tliat  there  is  a  third  course 
to  pursue  in  the  midst  of  the  conflict  ;  and  they  do 
not  see  that  the  working  classes  have  to  defend 
themselves,  at  the  same  motuent,  against  those  who 
wish  to  change  nothing  in  the  present  situation, 
because  the  tind  their  advantage  in  it,  and  against 
those  who  dream  of  an  economic  revolution  of 
which  they  have  calculated  neither  the  extent  nor 
the  significance."     {National  of  October  16.) 

We  do  not  desire,  however,  to  hide  from  your 
Majesty  the  fact  that  our  plan  has  a  vulnerable  side. 
They  may  say  to  us  :  In  twenty  years  all  left  hands 
will  be  as  skilled  as  right  ones  are  now,  and  you 
can  no  longer  count  on  left-handedness  to  increase 
the  national  labor. 

We  reply  to  this,  that,  according  to  learned  phy- 
sicians, the  left  side  of  the  body  has  a  natural 
weakness,  which  is  very  reassuring  for  the  future 
of  labor. 

Finally,  Sire,  consent  to  sign  the  law,  and  a  great 
principle  will  have  prevailed  :  All  toealth  comes  from 
the  intensity  of  labor.  It  will  be  easy  for  us  to 
extend  it,  and  vary  its  application.  We  will 
declare,  for  instance,  that  it  shall  be  allowable  to 
work  only  with  the  feet.  This  is  no  more  impos- 
sible (for  there  have  been  instances)  than  to  extract 
iron  from  the  mud  of  the  Seine.  There  have  even 
been  men  who  wrote  with  their  backs.  You  see. 
Sire,    that    we    do    not    lack  means  of  increasing 


SUPREMACY    BY    LABOR.  319 

national  labor.     If  they  do  begin  to  fail  us,  there 
remains  tlie  boundless  resource  of  amputation. 

If  this  report,  Sire,  was  not  intended  for  publica- 
tion, we  would  call  your  attention  to  the  great 
iiitiuence  wliich  systems  analogous  to  the  one  we 
submit  to  you,  are  capable  of  giving  to  men  in 
power.  But  this  is  a  subject  which  we  reserve  for 
consideration  in  private  counsel. 


XYII. 

SUPREMACY    BY    LABOR. 

"As  in  a  time  of  war,  supremacy  is  attained  by 
superiority  in  arms,  can,  in  a  time  of  peace,  suprem- 
acy be  secured  by  superiority  in  labor?" 

This  question  is  of  the  greatest  interest  at  a  time 
when  no  one  seems  to  doubt  that  in  the  field  of 
industry,  as  on  that  of  battle,  the  stronger  crushes 
the  weaker. 

This  must  result  from  the  discovery  of  some  sad 
and  discouraging  analogy  between  labor,  which 
exercises  itself  on  things,  and  violence,  which  exer- 
cises itself  on  men  ;  for  how  could  these  two  things 
be  identical  in  their  effects,  if  they  were  opposed  in 
their  nature  ? 

And  if  it  is  true  that  in  manufacturing  as  in  war, 


320  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

supremacy  is  the  necessary  result  of  superiority, 
why  need  we  occupy  oursel\^es  with  progress  or 
social  economy,  since  we  are  in  a  world  where  all 
has  been  so  arranged  by  Providence  tiiat  one  and 
the  same  result,  oppression,  necessarily  flows  from 
the  most  antagonistic  2)rinciples  ? 

Keferring  to  the  new  policy  toward  which  com- 
mercial freedom  is  drawing  England,  many  persons 
make  this  objection,  which,  I  admit,  occupies  the 
sincerest  minds.  "Is  England  doing  anything 
more  than  pursuing  the  same  end  by  different 
means  ?  Does  she  not  constantly  aspire  to  univer- 
sal supremacy  ?  Sure  of  the  superiority  of  her  cap- 
ital and  labor,  does  she  not  call  in  free  competition 
to  stifle  the  industry  of  the  continent,  reign  as  a 
sovereign,  and  conquer  the  privilege  of  feeding  and 
clothing  the  ruined  peoples  ?" 

It  would  be  easy  for  me  to  demonstrate  that  these 
alarms  are  chimerical  ;  that  our  pretended  inferiority 
is  greatly  exaggerated  ;  that  all  our  great  branches 
of  industry  not  only  resist  foreign  competition,  but 
develop  themselves  under  its  influence,  and  that  its 
infalhble  effect  is  to  bring  about  an  increase  in 
general  consumption  capable  of  absorbing  both 
foreign  and  domestic  products. 

To-day  I  desire  to  attack  this  objection  directly, 
leaving  it  all  its  power  and  the  advantage  of  the 
ground  it  has  chosen.  Putting  English  and  Frenclx 
on  one  side,  I  will  try  to  find  out  in  a  general  w^ay. 


SUPREMACY    BY    LABOR.  321 

if,  even  though  l)y  superiority  in  one  branch  of 
industry,  one  nation  has  crushed  out  similar  indus- 
trial pursuits  in  another  one,  this  nation  has  made  a 
step  toward  supremacy,  and  that  one  toward  de- 
pendence ;  in  other  words,  if  both  do  not  gain  by  the 
operation,  and  if  the  conquered  do  not  gain  the 
most  by  it. 

If  we  see  in  any  product  but  a  cause  of  labor,  it 
is  certain  that  the  alarm  of  the  protectionists  is  well 
founded.  If  we  consider  iron,  for  instance,  only  in 
connection  with  the  masters  of  forges,  it  might  be 
feared  that  the  competition  of  a  country  where  iron 
Avas  a  gratuitous  gift  of  nature,  would  extinguish 
the  furnaces  of  another  country,  where  ore  and 
fuel  were  scarce. 

But  is  this  a  complete  view  of  the  subject  ?  Are 
there  relations  only  between  iron  and  those  who 
make  it  ?  Has  it  none  with  those  who  use  it  ?  Is  its 
delinite  and  only  destination  to  be  produced  ?  And 
if  it  is  useful,  not  on  account  of  the  labor  which  it 
causes,  but  on  account  of  the  qualities  which  it 
possesses,  and  the  numerous  services  for  which  its 
hardness  and  malleability  fit  it,  does  it  not  follow 
that  foreigners  cannot  reduce  its  pi'ice,  even  so  far 
as  to  prevent  its  production  among  us,  without 
doing  us  more  good,  under  the  last  statement  of  the 
case,  than  it  injures  us,  under  the  first  ? 

Please  consider  well  that  there  are  many  things 
which  foreigners,  owing  to  the  natural  advantages 


322  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

which  suiTouiid  them,  liiiider  its  from  producing 
directly,  and  in  regard  to  which  we  are  placed,  in 
reality,  in  the  hypothetical  position  which  we  exam- 
ined relative  to  iron.  We  produce  at  home  neither 
tea,  coffee,  gold,  nor  silver.  Does  it  follow  that 
our  labor,  as  a  whole,  is  thereby  diminished  ?  No  ; 
only  to  create  the  equivalent  of  these  things,  to 
acquire  them  by  way  of  exchange,  we  detach  from 
our  general  labor  a  smaller  portion  than  we  would 
require  to  produce  them  ourselves.  More  remains 
to  us  to  use  for  other  things.  We  are  so  much  the 
richer  and  stronger.  All  that  external  rivalry  can 
do,  even  in  cases  where  it  absolutely  keeps  us  from 
any  certain  form  of  labor,  is  to  encourage  our 
labor,  and  increase  our  productive  power.  Is  that 
tlie  road  to  supremacy ,  for  foreigners  ? 

If  a  mine  of  gold  were  to  be  discovered  in  France, 
it  does  not  follow  that  it  would  be  for  our  interests 
to  work  it.  It  is  even  certain  that  the  enterprise 
ought  to  be  neglected,  if  each  ounce  of  gold 
absorbed  more  of  our  labor  than  an  ounce  of  gold 
bought  in  Mexico  with  cloth.  In  this  case,  it 
would  be  better  to  keep  on  seeing  our  mines  in  our 
manufactories.  What  is  true  of  gold  is  true  of 
iron. 

The  illusion  comes  from  the  fact  that  one  thing 
:s  not  seen.  That  is,  that  foreign  superiority  pre- 
vents national  labor,  only  under  some  cei'tain  form, 
and  makes  it  supei-fluous  under  this  form,  but  by 


SUPREMACY    BY    LABOR.  323 

putting  at  our  disposal  tlie  very  result  of  the  labor 
thus  annihilated.  If  men  lived  in  diving-bells, 
under  the  water,  and  had  to  provide  themselves 
witli  air  by  the  use  of  pumps,  there  would  be  an 
immense  source  of  labor.  To  destroy  this  labor, 
leamng  men,  in  this  condition,  would  be  to  do  them  a 
terrible  injury.  But  if  labor  ceases,  because  the 
necessity  for  it  has  gone  ;  because  men  are  placed 
in  another  position,  where  air  reaches  their  lungs 
witliout  an  effort,  then  the  loss  of  this  labor  is  not 
to  be  regretted,  except  in  the  eyes  of  those  who 
appreciate  in  labor,  only  the  labor  itself. 

It  is  exactly  this  sort  of  labor  which  machines, 
commercial  freedom,  and  progress  of  all  sorts, 
gradually  annihilate  ;  not  useful  labor,  but  labor 
which  has  become  superfluous,  supernumerary, 
objectless,  and  without  result.  On  the  other  hand, 
protection  restores  it  to  activity  ;  it  replaces  us 
under  the  water,  so  as  to  give  us  an  opportunity  of 
pumping  ;  it  forces  us  to  ask  for  gold  from  the 
inaccessible  national  mine,  rather  than  from  our 
national  manufactories.  All  its  effect  is  summed  up 
in  this  phrase- — loss  of  poioer. 

It  nuist  be  understood  that  I  speak  here  of  gen- 
eral effects,  and  not  of  the  temporary  disturbances 
occasioned  by  the  transition  from  a  bad  to  a  good 
system.  A  momentary  disarrangement  necessarily 
accompanies  all  progress.  This  may  be  a  reason 
for  making  the  transition  a  gentle  one,  but  not  for 


324  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

systematically  interdicting  all  progress,  and  still 
less  for  misunderstanding  it. 

They  represent  industry  to  us  as  a  conflict. 
Tliis  is  not  true  ;  or  is  true  only  when  you  confine 
yourself  to  considering  each  branch  of  industry  in 
its  effects  on  some  similar  branch — in  isolating  both, 
in  the  mind,  from  the  rest  of  humanity.  But  there 
is  something  else  ;  there  are  its  effects  on  consump- 
tion, and  the  general  well-being. 

This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  not  allowable  to 
assimilate  labor  to  war  as  they  do. 

In  war,  the  strongest  overiohelnis  the  weakest. 

In  labor,  the  strongest  gives  strength  to  the  weakest. 
This  radically  destroys  the  analogy. 

Though  the  English  are  strong  and  skilled  ; 
possess  immense  invested  capital,  and  have  at  their 
disposal  the  two  great  powers  of  production,  iron 
and  fire,  all  this  is  converted  into  the  cheapness  of 
the  product  ;  and  who  gains  by  the  cheapness  of  the 
product  ? — he  who  buys  it. 

It  is  not  in  their  power  to  absolutely  annihilate 
any  portion  of  our  labor.  All  that  they  can  do  is 
to  make  it  superfluous  through  some  result  acquired 
— to  give  air  at  the  same  time  that  they  suppress 
the  pump  ;  to  increase  thus  the  force  at  our  dis- 
posal, and,  which  is  a  remarkable  thing,  to  render 
their  pretended  supremacy  more  impossible,  as  their 
superiority  becomes  more  undeniable. 

Thus,  by  a  rigorous  and  consoling  demonstration, 


SUPREMACY    BY    LABOR.  325 

"we  reach  this  conchision  :  That  lahor  and  violence, 
so  oj)posed  ill  their  nature,  are,  whatever  socialists 
and  protectionists  may  say,  no  less  so  in  their 
effects. 

All  we  required,  to  do  that,  was  to  distinguish 
between  annihilated  labor  and  economized  labor. 

Having  less  iron  hecause  one  works  less,  or  hav- 
ing more  iron  although  one  works  less,  are  things 
which  are  more  than  different — they  are  opposites. 
The  protectionists  confound  them  ;  we  do  not. 
That  is  all. 

Be  convinced  of  one  thing.  If  the  English 
bring  into  play  much  activity,  labor,  capital,  intel- 
ligence, and  natural  force,  it  is  not  for  the  love  of 
us.  It  is  to  give  themselves  many  comforts  in 
exchange  for  their  products.  They  certainly  desire 
to  receive  at  least  as  much  as  they  give,  and  they 
7)iake  at  home  the  payment  for  that  which  they  huy 
elsewhere.  If  then,  they  inundate  us  with  their 
products,  it  is  because  they  expect  to  be  inundated 
with  ours.  In  this  case,  the  best  way  to  have  much 
for  ourselves  is  to  be  free  to  choose  between  these 
two  methods  of  production  :  direct  production  or 
indirect  production.  All  the  British  Machiavelism 
cannot  lead  us  to  make  a  l)ad  choice. 

Let  us  then  stop  assimilating  industrial  competi- 
tion with  war;  a  false  assimilation,  which  is  specious 
only  when  two  rival  branches  of  industry  are  iso- 
lated, in  order  to  judge  of  the  effects  of  competi- 


326  SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

tion.  As  soon  as  the  effect  produced  on  the  gen- 
eral well-being  is  taken  into  consideration,  the 
analogy  disappears. 

In  a  battle,  he  who  is  killed  is  thoroughly  killed, 
and  the  army  is  weakened  just  that  much.  In 
manufactures,  one  manufactory  succumbs  only  so 
far  as  the  total  of  national  labor  replaces  what  it 
produced,  with  an  excess.  Imagine  a  state  of  affair's 
where  for  one  man,  stretched  on  the  plain,  two 
spring  up  full  of  force  and  vigor.  If  there  is  a 
planet  where  such  things  happen,  it  must  be  admit- 
ted that  war  is  carried  on  there  under  conditions  so 
different  from  those  which  obtain  here  below,  tliat 
it  does  not  even  deserve  that  name. 

Now,  this  is  the  distinguishing  character  of  what 
they  have  so  inapprojjriately  called  an  industrial 
war. 

Let  the  Belgians  and  English  reduce  the  price  of 
their  iron,  if  they  can,  and  keep  on  reducing  it, 
until  they  bring  it  down  to  nothing.  They  may 
thereby  put  out  one  of  our  furnaces — kill  one  of 
our  soldiers  ;  but  I  defy  them  to  hinder  a  thousand 
other  industries,  more  profitable  than  the  disabled 
one,  immediately,  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence 
of  this  very  cheapness,  resuscitating  and  develop- 
ing themselves. 

Let  us  decide  that  supremacy  by  labor  is  impos- 
sible and  contradictory,  since  all  superiority  which 
manifests  itself  among  a  people  is  converted  into 


SUPEKMACY    BY    LABOK.  327 

cheapness,  and  results  only  in  giving  force  to  all 
others.  Let  ns,  then,  banish  from  political  econ- 
omy all  these  expressions  borrowed  from  the  vocab- 
ulary of  battles  :  to  struggle  with  equal  arms,  to  con- 
quer, to  crush  out,  to  stifle,  to  he  heaten,  invasion, 
tribute.  What  do  these  words  mean  ?  Squeeze 
them,  and  nothing  comes  out  of  them.  We  are 
mistaken  :  there  come  from  them  absurd  errors  and 
fatal  prejudices.  These  are  the  words  which  stop 
the  blending  of  peoples,  their  peaceful,  universal, 
indissoluble  alliance,  and  the  progress  of  humanity. 


PART    III, 


SPOLIATION   AND  LAWJ 


To  the  Protectionists  of  the  General  Council  of  Manufactures. 

Gentlemen  :  Let  us  for  a  few  moments  inter- 
change moderate  and  friendly  opinions. 

You  are  not  willing  that  political  economy  should 
beheve  and  teach  free  trade. 

This  is  as  though  you  were  to  say,  "  We  are  not 
wilhng  that  political  economy  should  occupy  itself 
with  society,  exchange,  value,  law,  justice,  property. 


*  On  the  2~th  of  April,  1850,  after  a  verj'  curious  discussion,  which  was 
reproduced  In  the  Monileur,  the  General  Council  of  Agriculture,  Manufact- 
ures, and  Commerce  issued  tlie  following  order  : 

"Political  economy  sh.-Jl  be  taught  by  the  government  professors,  not 
merely  from  the  theoretical  point  of  view  of  free  trade,  but  also  with  special 
regard  to  the  facts  and  legislation  which  control  French  industry." 

It  was  in  reply  to  this  decree  that  Bastiat  wrote  the  pamphlet  S}X)lia(ion. 
and  Law,  which  first  appeared  in  the  Journal  des  Economistes,  May  15, 
1850. 


330  SPOLIATION    AND    LAW. 

We  recognize  only  two  jjrinciples — oppression  and 
spoliation." 

Can  you  possibly  conceive  of  political  economy 
without  society  ?  Or  of  society  without  exchange  ? 
Or  of  exchange  without  a  relative  value  between 
the  two  articles,  or  the  two  services,  exchanged  ! 
Can  you  possibly  conceive  the  idea  of  value,  except 
as  the  result  of  i\\efree  consent  of  the  exchangers  ? 
Can  you  conceive  of  one  product  being  worth 
another,  if,  in  the  barter,  one  of  the  parties  is  not 
f7'€e  ?  It  is  possible  for  you  to  conceive  of  the  free 
consent  of  two  parties  without  liberty  ?  Can  you 
possibly  conceive  that  one  of  the  contracting  parties 
is  deprived  of  his  liberty  unless  he  is  oppressed  by 
the  other  ?  Can  you  possibly  conceive  of  an  ex- 
change between  an  oppressor  and  one  oppressed, 
unless  the  equivalence  of  the  services  is  altered, 
or  unless,  as  a  consequence,  law,  justice,  and  the 
rights  of  property  have  been  violated  ? 

What  do  you  really  want  ?    Answer  frankly. 

You  are  not  willing  that  trade  should  be  free  ! 

You  desire,  then,  that  it  shall  not  be  free  ?  You 
desire,  then,  that  trade  shall  be  carried  on  under 
the  influence  of  oppression  ?  For  if  it  is  not 
carried  on  under  the  influence  of  oppression,  it  will 
be  carried  on  under  the  influence  of  liberty,  and 
that  is  what  you  do  not  desii-e. 

Admit,  then,  that  it  is  law  and  justice  which 
embarrass    you  ;    that    that    which  troubles  you  is 


SPOLIATION    AND    LAW.  331 

property — not  your  own,  to  be  sure,  but  another's. 
You  are  altoo^ether  unwilling  to  allow  others  to  freely 
dispose  of  their  own  property  (the  essential  condi- 
tion of  ownership)  ;  but  jou  well  understand  liow 
to  dispose  of  jour  own — and  of  theirs. 

And,  accordingly,  you  ask  the  political  econo- 
mists to  arrange  this  mass  of  absurdities  and  mon- 
strosities in  a  definite  and  well-ordered  system  ;  to 
establish,  in  accordance  with  your  practice,  the 
theory  of  spoliation. 

But  they  will  never  do  it  ;  for,  in  their  eyes, 
spoliation  is  a  principle  of  hatred  and  disorder,  and 
the  most  particularly  odious  form  which  it  can 
lissume  is  the  legal  form. 

And  here,  Mr.  Benoit  d'Azy,  1  take  you  to  task. 
You  are  moderate,  impartial,  and  generous.  You 
are  willing  to  sacrifice  your  interests  and  your  fort- 
une. This  you  constantly  declare.  Recently,  in 
the  General  Council,  you  said:  "  If  the  rich  had 
only  to  abandon  their  wealth  to  make  the  people 
rich,  we  should  all  be  ready  to  do  it.  "  [Hear,  hear. 
It  is  true.]  And  yesterday,  in  the  National  Assem- 
bly, you  said  :  "  If  I  believed  that  it  was  in  my 
power  to  give  to  the  workingmen  all  the  work  they 
need,  I  would  give  all  I  possess  to  realize  this  bless- 
ing.    Unfortunately,  it  is  impossible." 

Although  it  pains  you  that  the  sacrifice  is  so 
useless  that  it  should  not  be  made,  and  you  exclaim, 
with  Basile,    "  Money  !  money  !  I  detest  it — but  I 


332  SPOLIATION    AND    LAW. 

will  keep  it,"  assuredly  no  one  will  question  a  gen- 
ei'osity  so  retentive,  however  l)arren.  It  is  a  virtue 
which  lovées  to  envelop  itself  in  a  veil  of  modesty, 
especially  when-  it  is  purely  latent  and  negative. 
As  for  you,  you  will  lose  no  opportunity  to  pro- 
claim it  in  the  ears  of  all  France  from  the  tribune 
of  the  L^ixonhourg  and  the  Palais  Législatif. 

But  no  one  desires  you  to  abandon  your  fortune, 
and  I  admit  that  it  would  not  solve  the  social 
problem. 

You  wish  to  be  generous,  but  cannot.  I  only 
venture  to  ask  that  you  will  be  just.  Keep  your 
fortune,  but  permit  me  also  to  keep  mine.  Respect 
my  pro])erty  as  I  respect  yours.  Is  this  too  bold  a 
request  on  my  part  ? 

Suppose  we  lived  in  a  country  under  a  free-trade 
régime,  where  every  one  could  dispose  of  his  prop- 
erty and  his  labor  at  ]')leasure.  Does  this  make 
your  hair  stand  ?  Reassure  yourself,  this  is  only  an 
hypothesis. 

One  would  then  be  as  free  as  the  other.  There 
would,  indeed,  be  a  law  in  the  code,  but  this  law, 
impartial  and  just,  would  not  infringe  our  liberty, 
but  would  guarantee  it,  and  it  would  take  effect 
only  when  we  sought  to  oppress  each  other.  There 
\vould  be  officers  of  the  law,  magistrates  and  police  ; 
but  they  would  only  execute  the  law.  Under  such 
a  state  of  affairs,  suppose  that  you  owned  an  iron 
loundrj-,  and  that  I  was  a  hatter.     I  should  need 


SPOLIATION    AND    LAW.  333 

iron  for  my  business.  Naturally  1  should  seek 
to  solve  this  problem  :  "  How  shall  I  best  procure 
the  iron  necessary  for  my  business  with  the  least 
possible  amount  of  labor?"  Considering  my  situa- 
tion, and  my  means  of  knowledge,  I  should  dis- 
cover that  the  best  thing  for  me  to  do  would  be  to 
make  hats,  and  sell  them  to  a  Belgian  who  would 
give  me  iron  in  exchange. 

But  you,  being  the  owner  of  an  iron  foundry, 
and  considering  my  case,  would  say  to  yourself  : 
"  I  shall  be  obliged  to  compel  that  fellow  to  come  to 
my  shop." 

You,  accordingly,  take  your  sword  and  pistols, 
and,  arming  your  numerous  retinue,  proceed  to  the 
frontier,  and,  at  the  moment  I  am  engaged  in 
making  my  trade,  you  cry  out  to  me  :  "  Stop  that, 
or  I  will  blow  your  brains  out  !"  "  But,  my  lord, 
I  am  in  need  of  iron."  "  I  have  it  to  sell."  "  But, 
sir,  you  ask  too  much  for  it."  "I  have  my  reasons 
for  that.  "  "  But,  my  good  sir,  I  also  have  my  reasons 
for  preferring  cheaper  iron."  "Well,  we  shall 
see  who  shall  decide  between  your  reasons  and 
mine  !    Soldiers,  advance  !" 

In  short,  you  forbid  the  entry  of  the  Belgian 
iron,  and  prevent  the  export  of  my  hats. 

Under  the  condition  of  things  which  we  have 
supposed  (that  is,  under  a  regime  of  liberty),  you 
cannot  deny  that  that  would  be,  on  your  part,  man- 
ifestly an  act  of  oppression  and  spoliation. 


334  SPOLIATION    AND    LAW, 

Accordingly,  I  should  resort  to  the  law,  the 
magistrate,  and  the  power  of  the  government. 
They  would  intervene.  Yon  would  be  tried,  con- 
demned, and  justly  punished. 

But  this  circumstance  would  suggest  to  you  a 
bright  idea.  You  would  say  to  yourself  :  "I  have 
been  very  simple  to  give  myself  so  nmch  trouble. 
What  !  place  myself  in  a  position  where  I  must 
kill  some  one,  or  be  killed  !  degrade  myself  !  put 
my  domestics  under  arms  !  incur  heavy  expenses  ! 
give  myself  the  character  of  a  robber,  and  render 
myself  liable  to  the  laws  of  the  country  !  And  all 
this  in  order  to  compel  a  miserable  hatter  to  come 
to  my  foundry  to  buy  iron  at  my  price  !  What  if  I 
should  make  the  interest  of  the  law,  of  the  magis- 
trate, of  the  public  authorities,  my  interests  ? 
What  if  I  could  get  them  to  perform  the  odious 
act  on  the  frontier  which  I  was  about  to  do  my- 
self ?" 

Enchanted  by  this  pleasing  prospect,  you  secure 
a  nomination  to  the  Chambers,  and  obtain  the  pas- 
sage of  a  law  conceived  in  the  following  terms  : 

Spxtion  1.  There  shall  be  a  tax  levied  upon 
everybody  (but  especially  upon  that  cursed  hat- 
maker). 

Sec.  2.  The  proceeds  of  this  tax  shall  be 
applied  to  the  payment  of  men  to  guard  the  fron- 
tier in  the  interest  of  iron-founders. 

Sec.   3.     It    shall  be  their  duty  to  prevent  the 


I 


SPOLIATION    AXD    LAW.  335 

exc]iaiige  of  hats  or  other  articles  of  merchandise 
with  the  Belgians  for  iron. 

Sec.  4.  The  ministers  of  the  government,  the 
prosecuting  attorneys,  jailers,  customs  officers,  and 
all  officials,  are  intrusted  with  the  execution  of  this 
law. 

I  admit,  sir,  that  in  this  form  rohbery  would  1)0 
far  more  lucrative,  more  agreeable,  and  less  perilous 
than  under  the  arrangements  which  you  had  at  first 
determined  upon.  I  admit  that  for  you  it  would 
offer  a  very  pleasant  prospect.  You  could  most 
assuredly  laugh  in  your  sleeve,  for  you  would  then 
have  saddled  all  the  expenses  upon  me. 

But  1  affirm  that  you  would  have  introduced  into 
society  a  vicious  principle,  a  principle  of  immoral- 
ity, of  disorder,  of  hatred,  and  of  incessant  revolu- 
tions ;  that  you  would  have  prepared  the  way  for 
all  the  various  schemes  of  socialism  and  communism. 

You,  doubtless,  find  my  hypothesis  a  very  bold 
one.  Well,  then,  let  us  reverse  the  case.  I  consent 
for  the  sake  of  the  demonstration. 

Suppose  that  1  am  a  laborer  and  you  an  iron- 
founder. 

It  would  be  a  great  advantage  to  me  to  buy 
hatchets  cheap,  and  even  to  get  them  for  nothing. 
And  I  know  that  there  are  hatchets  and  saws  in 
your  establishment.  Accordingly,  without  any 
ceremony,  I  enter  your  warehouse  and  seize  every- 
thing that  I  can  lay  my  hands  upon. 


336  SPOLIATION    AND    LAW. 

But,  in  tlic  exercise  of  your  legitimate  riglit  of 
self-defence,  you  at  first  resist  force  with  force  ; 
afterward,  invoking  the  power  of  the  law,  the 
magistrate,  and  the  constables,  you  throw  me  into 
prison — and   you    do  well. 

Oh  !  ho  !  the  thought  suggests  itself  to  me  that 
I  have  been  very  awkward  in  this  business.  When 
a  person  wishes  to  enjoy  the  property  of  other 
people,  he  will,  unless  he  is  a  fool,  -àisi  in  accordance 
with  the  hiw,  and  not  in  violation  of  it.  Conse- 
quently, just  as  you  have  made  yourself  a  protec- 
tionist, I  will  make  myself  a  socialist.  Since  you 
have  laid  claim  to  the  right  to  j>roJit,  1  claim  the 
right  to  labor,  or  to  the  instruments  of  labor. 

For  the  rest,  I  read  my  Louis  Blanc  in  prison, 
and  1  knov/  by  heart  this  doctrine  :  "  In  order  to 
disenthrall  themselves,  the  common  people  have 
need  of  tools  to  work  with  ;  it  is  the  function  of 
the  government  to  provide  them."  And  again: 
"If  one  admits  that,  in  order  to  be  really  free,  a 
man  requires  the  ability  to  exercise  and  to  develop 
his  faculties,  the  result  is  that  society  owes  each 
of  its  members  instruction,  without  which  the 
human  mind  is  incapable  of  development,  and  the 
instruments  of  labor,  vvithout  which  human  activi- 
ties have  no  field  for  their  exercise.  But  by  what 
means  can  society  give  to  each  one  of  its  members 
the  necessary  instruction  and  the  necessary  instru- 
ments of  la])or,   except  by  the  intervention  of  the 


SPOLIATION"    AND    LAW.  337 

State  ?"  So  tliat  if  it  becomes  necessary  to  revolu- 
tionize the  country,  I  also  will  force  my  wa_y  into 
tlie  halls  of  legislation.  1  also  will  pervert  the  law, 
and  make  it  perform  in  my  behalf  and  at  your 
expense  the  very  act  for  which  it  just  now  punished 
me. 

My  decree  is  modelled  after  yours  : 

Section  1.  There  shall  be  taxes  levied  upon  every 
citizen,  and  especially  upon  iron  founders. 

Sec.  2.  The  proceeds  of  this  tax  shall  be  ap- 
plied to  the  creation  of  armed  corps,  to  which  the 
title  of  ihe  fraternal  constdbv.lary  shall  be  given. 

Sec.  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  i\iQ  fraternal 
constabulary  to  make  their  waj^  into  the  warehouses 
of  hatchets,  saws,  etc.,  to  take  po^e'^ion  of  these 
tools,  and  to  distribute  them  to  such  workingmen 
as  may  desire  them. 

Thanks  to  this  ingenious  device,  you  see,  my 
lord,  that  I  shall  no  longer  be  obliged  to  bear  the 
risks,  the  costs,  the  odium,  or  the  scruples  of  rob- 
bery. The  State  will  rob  for  me  as  it  has  for  you. 
We  shall  both  be  playing  the  same  game. 

It  remains  to  be  seen  what  would  be  the  condi- 
tion of  French  society  on  the  realization  of  my 
second  hypothesis,  or  what,  at  least,  is  the  condition 
of  it  after  the  almost  complete  realization  of  the 
first  hypothesis.  T  do  not  desire  to  discusB  here  the 
economy  of  the  question.  It  is  generally  believed 
that   in   advocating   free  trade  we  are  exclusively 


338  SPOLIATION    AND    LAW. 

influenced  by  the  desire  to  allow  capital  and  laLor 
to  take  the  direction  most  advantageous  to  them. 
This  is  an  error.  This  consideration  is  merely 
secondary.  That  which  wounds,  afflicts,  and  is 
revolting  to  us  in  the  protective  system,  is  the 
denial  of  right,  of  justice,  of  property  ;  it  is  the 
fact  that  the  system  turns  the  law  against  justice 
and  against  property,  when  it  ought  to  protect 
them  ;  it  is  that  it  undermines  and  perverts  the 
very  conditions  of  society.  And  to  the  question  in 
this  aspect  I  invite  your  most  serious  consideration. 

What  is  law,  or  at  least  what  ought  it  to  be  ? 
What  is  its  rational  and  moral  mission  ?  Is  it  not 
to  hold  the  balance  even  between  all  rights,  all  lib- 
erties, and  all  property?  Is  it  not  to  cause  justice 
to  rule  among  all?  Is  it  not  to  prevent  and  to 
repress  oppression  and  robbery  wherever  they  are 
found  ? 

And  are  you  not  shocked  at  the  immense,  radi- 
cal, and  deplorable  innovation  introduced  into  the 
world  by  compelling  the  law  itself  to  commit  the 
very  crimes  to  punish  which  is  its  especial  mission 
— ^l)}^  turning  the  law  in  principle  and  in  fact  against 
liberty  and  property  ? 

You  deplore  the  condition  of  modern  society. 
Yon  groan  over  the  disorder  which  prevails  in  insti- 
tutions and  ideas.  But  is  it  not  your  system  which 
has  perverted  everything,  both  institutions  and 
ideas  ? 


SPOLIATION    AND    LAW.  339 

What  !  the  law  is  no  longer  the  refuge  of  the 
oppressed,  l)ut  the  arm  of  the  oppressor  !  The  law 
is  no  longer  a  shield,  but  a  sword  !  The  law  no 
longer  holds  in  her  august  hands  a  scale,  but  false 
weights  and  measures  !  And  you  wish  to  have 
society  well  regulated  ! 

Your  system  has  written  over  the  entrance  of  the 
legislative  halls  these  words  :  "  Whoever  acquires 
any  influence  here  can  obtain  his  share  of  the  legal- 
ized pillage." 

And  what  has  been  the  result  ?  All  classes  of 
society  have  become  demoralized  by  shouting 
around  the  gates  of  the  i^alace  :  "  Give  me  a  share 
of  the  spoils." 

After  the  revolution  of  February,  when  univer- 
sal suffrage  was  proclaimed,  I  had  for  a  moment 
hoped  to  have  heard  this  sentiment:  "No  more 
pillage  for  any  one,  justice  for  all."  And  that 
would  have  been  the  real  solution  of  the  social 
problem.  Such  was  not  the  case.  The  doctrine 
of  protection  had  for  generations  too  profoundly 
corrupted  the  age,  public  sentiments,  and  ideas. 
No.  In  making  inroads  upon  the  National  Assem- 
bly, each  class,  in  accordance  with  your  system, 
has  endeavored  to  make  the  law  an  instrument  of 
rapine.  There  have  been  demanded  heavier  im- 
posts, gratuitous  credit,  the  right  to  employment, 
the  right  to  assistance,  the  guaranty  of  incomes 
and    of   minimum    wages,    gratuitous   instruction, 


340  SPOLIATION    AND    LAW, 

loans  to  indnstiy,  etc. ,  etc.  ;  in  sliort,  every  one  has 
endeavored  to  live  and  thrive  at  the  expense  of 
others.  And  upon  what  have  these  pretensions 
been  based  ?  Upon  the  authority  of  your  prece- 
dents. AVhat  sophisms  have  been  invoked  ?  Those 
that  you  have  propagated  for  two  centuries.  With 
you  they  liave  talked  about  equalizing  the  conditions 
of  labor.  With  you  they  have  declaimed  against 
ruinous  competition.  With  you  they  have  ridi- 
culed the  let  alone  principle,  that  is  to  say,  liberty. 
With  you  they  have  said  that  the  law  should  not 
confine  itself  to  being  just,  but  should  come  to  the 
aid  of  suffering  industries,  protect  the  feeble  against 
the  strong,  secure  profits  to  individuals  at  the 
expense  of  the  community,  etc.,  etc.  In  short, 
according  to  the  expression  of  Mr.  Charles  Dupin, 
socialism  has  come  to  establish  the  theory  of  rob- 
bery. It  has  done  what  you  have  done,  and  that 
which  you  desire  the  professors  of  political  economy 
to  do  for  you. 

Your  cleverness  is  in  vain.  Messieurs  Protection- 
ists^ it  is  useless  to  lower  your  tone,  to  boast  of  your 
latent  generosity,  or  to  deceive  your  opponents  by 
sentiment.  You  cannot  j^revent  logic  from  being 
logic. 

You  cannot  prevent  Mr.  Billault  from  telling  the 
legislators,  "You  have  granted  favors  to  one,  you 
must  grant  them  to  all." 

You  cannot  prevent  Mr.  Cremieux  from  telhng 


SPOLIATION    AND    LAW.  3-il 

the  legislators  :  "  You  have  enriched  the  manufact- 
urers, you  must  enrich  the  common  ])eople.  " 

You  cannot  prevent  Mr.  Nadeau  from  saying  to 
the  legislators  :  '  '  Y^ou  cannot  refuse  to  do  for  the 
suffering  classes  that  vv^hich  you  have  done  for  the 
privileged  classes.  '  ' 

Y"ou  cannot  even  prevent  the  leader  of  your 
orchestra,  Mr.  Mimerel,  from  saying  to  the  legisla- 
tors :  '*  I  demand  twenty-five  thousand  subsidies 
for  the  workingmen's  savings  banks,"  and  support- 
ing liis  motion  in  this  manner  : 

*'  Is  this  the  first  example  of  the  kind  that  our  legislation  offer's  ? 
Would  yon  establish  the  system  that  the  State  should  encourage 
everything,  open  at  its  expense  courses  of  scientific  lectures, 
subsidize  the  fine  arts,  pension  the  theatre,  give  to  the  classes 
already  favored  by  fortune  the  benefits  of  s'^perior  education, 
the  most  varied  amusements,  the  enjoyment  of  the  arts,  and 
repose  for  old  age — give  all  this  to  those  who  know  nothing  of 
privations,  and  compel  those  who  have  no  shai'e  in  these  benefits 
to  bear  their  part  of  the  burden,  while  refusing  them  everything, 
even  the  necessaries  of  life? 

"  Gentlemen,  our  French  society,  our  customs,  our  laws,  are 
so  made  that  the  intervention  of  the  State,  however  much  it  may 
be  regretted,  is  seen  everywhere,  and  nothing  seems  to  be  stable 
or  durable  if  the  hand  of  the  State  is  not  manifest  in  it.  It  is  the 
State  that  makes  the  Sèvres  porcelain  and  the  Gobelin  tapestry  ; 
it  is  the  State  that  periodically  gives  expositions  of  the  works 
of  our  artists  and  of  the  products  of  our  manufacturers  ;  it  is  the 
State  which  recompenses  those  who  raise  its  cattle  and  breed 
its  fish.  All  this  costs  a  great  deal.  It  is  a  tax  to  which  every 
one  is  obliged  to  contribvite.  Everybody,  do  you  understand  ? 
And  what  direct  benefit  do  the  people  derive  from  it?  Of  what 


342  SPOLIATION    AND    LAW, 

direct  benefit  to  the  people  are  your  porcelains  and  tapestries 
and  your  expositions?  This  general  principle  of  resisting  what 
you  call  a  state  of  enthusiasm  we  can  understand,  although  you 
yesterday  voted  a  bounty  for  linens  ;  we  can  understand  it  on 
the  condition  of  consulting  the  present  crisis,  and  especially  on 
the  condition  of  your  proving  your  imi:)artiality.  If  it  is  true  that, 
by  the  means  I  have  indicated,  the  State  thus  far  seems  to  have 
more  directly  benefited  the  well-to-do  classes  than  those  who 
are  poorer,  it  is  necessary  that  this  aijpearance  shoiild  be  re- 
moved. Shall  it  be  done  by  closing  the  manufactories  of  tapes- 
try and  stopping  the  exhibitions  ?  Assuredly  not,  hut  by  giving 
the  poor  a  direct  share  in  this  distribution  of  benefits." 

In  this  long  catalogue  of  favors  granted  to  some 
at  the  expense  of  r.ll,  one  will  remark  the  extreme 
prudence  with  which  Mr.  Mimerel  has  left  the  tariff 
favors  out  of  sight,  although  they  are  the  most 
explicit  manifestations  of  legal  spoliation.  All  the 
orators  who  supported  or  opposed  him  have  taken 
upon  themselves  the  same  reserve.  It  is  very 
shrewd  !  Possibly  they  hope,  hy  giviiuj  the  poor  a 
direct  participation  in  this  distrihution  ofhetiefits, 
to  save  this  great  iniquity  by  which  they  profit,  but 
of  which  they  do  not  whisper. 

They  deceive  themselves.  Do  they  suppose  that 
after  having  realized  a  partial  spoliation  by  the 
establishment  of  customs  duties,  other  classes,  by 
the  establishment  of  other  institutions,  will  not 
attempt  to  realize  universal  spoliation  ? 

I  know  very  well  you  always  have  a  sophism 
ready.     You    say:     "The   favors   which  the  law 


SPOLIATION    AND    LAW.  343 

fçraiit  us  arc  not  f^ivcii  to  the  manufacturer,  but  to 
manufactures.  The  profits  whicli  it  enables  us  to 
receive  at  the  expense  of  the  consumers  are  merely 
a  trust  placed  in  our  hands.  They  enrich  us,  it  is 
true,  but  our  wealth  places  us  in  a  position  to  ex- 
pend more,  to  extend  our  establishments,  and  falls 
like  refreshing  dew  upon  the  laboring  classes." 

Such  is  your  language,  and  what  I  most  lament 
is  the  circumstance  that  your  miseraljle  sophisms 
liave  so  perverted  public  opinion  that  they  are 
appealed  to  in  support  of  all  forms  of  legalized 
spoliation.  The  suffering  classes  also  say:  "Let 
us  by  act  of  the  Legislature  help  ourselves  to  the 
goods  of  others.  We  shall  be  in  easier  circum- 
stances as  the  result  of  it  ;  we  shall  buy  more 
wheat,  more  meat,  more  cloth,  and  more  iron  ;  and 
that  which  we  receive  from  the  public  taxes  will 
return  in  a  beneficent  shower  to  the  capitalists  and 
landed  proprietors.  " 

But,  as  I  have  already  said,  I  will  not  to-day  dis- 
cuss the  economical  effects  of  legal  spoliation. 
Whenever  the  protectionists  desire,  they  will  find 
me  ready  to  examine  the  sojjMsms  of  the  ricochets, 
which,  indeed,  may  be  invoked  in  support  of  all 
species  of  robbery  and  fraud. 

We  will  confine  ourselves  to  the  political  and 
moral  effects  of  exchange  legally  deprived  of  liberty. 

I  have  said  :  The  time  has  come  to  know  what 
the  law  is,  and  what  it  ought  to  be. 


S-i4  fiPOIJATION    AND    LAW. 

If  you  make  the  law  for  all  citizens  a  palladium 
of  liberty  and  of  property;  if  it  is  only  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  individual  law  of  self-defence  you  will 
establish,  upon  the  foundation  of  justice,  a  govern- 
ment rational,  simple,  economical,  comprehended 
by  all,  loved  by  all,  useful  to  all,  supported  by  all, 
intrusted  with  a  responsibility  perfectly  defined  and 
carefully  restricted,  and  endowed  with  imperishable 
strength.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  interests  of 
individuals  or  of  classes,  you  make  the  law  an 
instrument  of  robbery,  every  one  will  wisli  to  make 
laws,  and  to  make  them  to  his  own  advantage. 
There  will  be  a  riotous  crowd  at  the  doors  of  tlie 
legislative  halls,  there  will  be  a  bitter  conflict 
within  ;  minds  will  be  in  anarchy,  morals  will  be 
shipwrecked  ;  there  will  l)c  violence  in  party  organs, 
lieated  elections,  accusations,  recriminations,  jeal- 
ousies, inextinguishable  hates,  the  public  forces 
placed  at  the  service  of  rapacity  instead  of  repress- 
ing it,  the  ability  to  distinguish  the  tiiie  from  the 
false  effaced  from  all  minds,  as  the  notion  of 
justice  and  injustice  will  be  obliterated  from  all 
consciences,  the  government  responsible  for  every- 
thing and  bending  under  the  burden  of  its  respon- 
sibilities, political  convulsions,  revolutions  without 
end,  ruins  over  which  all  forms  of  sociahsm  and 
communism  attempt  to  establish  themselves  :  these 
nre  the  evils  which  must  necessarily  flow  from  the 
perversion  of  law. 


SPOLIATION    AND    LAW.  345 

Such,  consequently,  gentlemen,  are  the  evils  for 
which  you  have  prepared  the  way  by  making  use 
of  the  law  to  destroy  freedom  of  exchange— that  is 
to  say,  to  abolish  the  right  of  property.  Do  not 
declaim  against  socialism  ;  you  establish  it.  Do 
not  cry  out  against  communism  ;  you  create  it. 
And  now  you  ask  us  Economists  to  make  you  a 
theory  which  will  justify  you  !  Morbleu  !  make  it 
yourselves. 


PART    IV, 


CAPITAL  AND   INTEREST. 


My  object  in  this  treatise  is  to  examine  into  the 
real  nature  of  the  Interest  of  Capital,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  proving  that  it  is  lawful,  and  explaining 
why  it  should  be  perpetual.  Tliis  may  appear  sin- 
gular, and  yet  I  confess  I  am  more  afraid  of  being 
too  plain  than  too  obscure.  I  am  afraid  I  may 
weary  the  reader  by  a  series  of  mere  truisms.  But 
it  is  no  easy  matter  to  avoid  this  danger,  when  the 
facts  with  whioli  Ave  have  to  deal  are  known  to 
every  one  by  personal,  familiar,  and  daily  expe- 
rience. 

But  then,  you  will  say,  "  What  is  the  use  of  this 
treatise?     Why  explain    what    everybody  knows  ?" 

Bat,  although  this  problem  appears  at  first  sight 
80  very  simple,  there  is  more  in  it   than  you  might 


O-iS  CAPITAL    AJN'D    INTEREST. 

suppose,  I  shall  endeavor  to  prove  this  by  an  ex- 
ample. Mondor  lends  an  instrument  of  labor  to- 
day, which  will  be  entirely  destroyed  in  a  week,  yet 
the  capital  will  not  produce  the  less  interest  to  Mon- 
dor or  his  heirs,  tlirough  all  eternity.  Reader,  can 
you  honestly  say  that  you  understand  the  reason  of 
this  ? 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  seek  any  satisfac- 
tory explanation  from  the  writings  of  economists. 
They  have  not  thrown  much  light  upon  the  reasons 
of  the  existence  of  interest.  For  this  they  are  not 
to  be  blamed  ;  for  at  the  time  they  wrote,  its  law- 
fulness was  not  called  in  question.  Now,  however, 
times  are  altered  ;  the  case  is  different.  Men  who 
consider  themselves  to  be  in  advance  of  their  age, 
have  organized  an  active  crusade  against  capital 
and  interest  ;  it  is  the  productiveness  of  capital 
which  they  are  attacking  ;  not  certain  abuses  in  the 
administration  of  it,  but  the  principle  itself. 

A  journal  has  been  established  to  serve  as  a  vehi- 
cle for  this  crusade.  It  is  conducted  by  M.  Proud- 
lion,  and  has,  it  is  said,  an  immense  circulation. 
Tlie  first  number  of  this  periodical  contains  the 
electoral  manifesto  of  the  "people.  Here  we  read, 
"  The  productiveness  of  capital,  which  is  condemn- 
ed by  Christianity  under  the  name  of  usury,  is  the 
true  cause  of  misery,  the  true  principle  of  destitu- 
tion, the  eternal  obstacle  to  the  establishment  of  the 
Republic." 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  349 

Another  journal,  La  lîtiche  Populaire,  after 
having  said  some  excellent  things  on  labor,  adds, 
"  Elit  above  all,  labor  ought  to  be  free — that  is,  it 
ought  to  bo  organiiîed  in  such  a  manner /Aa?!  money- 
leiiders  arxd patrons  or  viasters^  sliould  not  he  paid 
for  this  liberty  of  labor,  tliis  right  of  labor,  -which 
is  raised  to  so  high  a  price  by  the  traffickers  of  men." 
The  only  thought  that  I  notice  here  is  that  ex- 
pressed by  the  words  in  italics,  ■which  iniply  a  denial 
of  the  right  to  interest.  The  remainder  of  the  ar- 
ticle explains  it. 

It  is  thus  that  the  democratic  Socialist,  Thorê, 
expresses  himself  : 

"  The  revolution  will  always  have  to  be  recom- 
menced, so  long  as  we  occupy  ourselves  with  con- 
sequences only,  without  having  the  logic  or  the 
courage  to  attack  the  principle  itself.  This  principle 
is  capital,  false  property,  interest,  and  usury,  which 
by  the  old  regime,  is  made  to  weigh  upon  labor. 

"  Ever  since  the  aristocrats  invented  the  incredi- 
ble fiction,'  capital  jyossesses  the  power  of  reproduc- 
ing itself,  the  workers  have  been  at  the  mercy  of 
the  idle. 

''  At  the  end  of  a  year,  will  you  hnd  an  addi- 
tional crown  in  a  bao;  of  one  hundred  shillino-s  ? 
At  the  end  of  fourteen  years,  will  your  shillings 
have  doubled  in  your  bag  ? 

"  Will  a  work  of  industry  or  of  skill  produce 
another,  at  the  end  of  fourteen  years  ? 


350  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

"Let  US  begin,  then,  by  demolishing  tliis  fatal 
fiction." 

I  have  quoted  the  above,  merely  for  the  sake  of 
establishing  the  fact,  that  many  persons  consider  the 
productiveness  of  capital  a  false,  a  fatal,  and  an 
iniquitous  principle.  But  quotations  are  superflu- 
ous ;  it  is  well  known  that  the  people  attribute 
their  sufferings  to  what  they  call  the  trafficking  in 
TYian  hy  man.  In  fact,  the  phrase  tyranny  of  capi- 
tal has  become  proverbial. 

I  believe  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  world  who  is 
aware  of  the  whole  importance  of  this  question  : 

"  Is  the  interest  of  capital  natural,  just,  and  law. 
ful,  and  as  useful  to  the  payer  as  to  the   receiver  f 

You  answer,  no  ;  I  answer,  yes.  Then  we  differ 
entirely  ;  but  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to 
discover  which  of  us  is  in  the  right  ;  otherwise  wc 
shall  incur  the  danger  of  making  a  false  solution  of 
the  question,  a  matter  of  opinion.  If  the  error  is 
on  my  side,  however,  the  evil  would  not  be  so  great. 
It  must  be  inferred  that  I  know  nothing  about  the 
true  interests  of  the  masses,  or  the  march  of  hu- 
man progress  ;  and  that  all  my  arguments  are  but 
as  so  many  grains  of  sand,  by  which  the  car  of  the 
revolution  will  certainly  not  be  arrested. 

But  if,  on  the  contrary,  MM.  Proudhon  and 
Thoré  are  deceiving  themselves,  it  follows  that 
they  are  leading  the  people  astray — that  they  are 
showing  them  the  evil  where  it  does  not  exist  ;  and 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  351 

thus  giving  a  false  direction  to  their  ideas,  to  their 
antipathies,  to  their  dislikes,  and  to  their  attacks. 
It  follows,  that  the  misguided  people  are  rushing 
into  a  horrihle  and  absurd  struggle,  in  which  vic- 
tory would  be  more  fatal  than  defeat,  since,  accord- 
ing to  this  supposition,  the  result  would  be  the  reali- 
zation of  universal  evils,  the  destruction  of  every 
means  of  emancipation,  the  consummation  of  its 
own  misery. 

This  is  just  what  M.  Proudhon  has  acknowledged, 
with  perfect  good  faith.  "  The  foundation  stone," 
he  told  me,  ''of  my  system  is  the  graUdtousness 
of  credit.  If  I  am  mistaken  in  this,  Socialism  is  a 
vain  dream."  I  add,  it  is  a  dream,  in  which  the 
people  are  tearing  themselves  to  pieces.  Will  it, 
therefore,  be  a  cause  for  surprise,  if,  when  they 
awake,  they  find  themselves  mangled  and  bleeding? 
Such  a  danger  as  this  is  enough  to  justify  me  fully, 
if,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  I  allow  myself  to 
be  led  into  some  trivialities  and  some  prolixity. 

CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

I  address  this  treatise  to  the  workmen  of  Paris, 
more  especially  to  those  who  have  enrolled  them- 
selves under  the  banner  of  Socialist  democracy.  I 
proceed  to  consider  these  two  questions  : 

1st.  Is  it  consistent  with  the  nature  of  things, 
and  with  justice,  that  capital  should  produce  interest  ? 

2d.     Is   it  consistent  with  the   nature  of  things, 


352  CAPITAL    AND    INTERKRT. 

and  with  justice,  that  tlic  interest  of  capital  Bhould 
be  perpetual  ? 

The  worlvingmen  of  Paris  will  certainly  acknoM'l- 
cdgethat  a  more  important  subject  could  not  bo 
discussed. 

Since  the  world  began,  it  has  been  allowed,  at 
least  in  part,  that  capital  ought  to  produce  interest. 
But  latterly  it  has  been  affirmed,  that  herein  lies  the 
very  social  error  which  is  the  cause  of  pauperism 
and  inequality.  It  is,  therefore,  very  essential  to 
know  now  on  what  ground  we  stand. 

For  if  levying  interest  from  capital  is  a  sin,  the 
workers  have  a  right  to  revolt  against  social  order, 
as  it  exists  ;  it  is  in  vain  to  tell  them  that  they 
ought  to  have  recourse  to  legal  and  pacific  means, 
it  would  be  a  hypocritical  recommendation.  AVhen 
on  the  one  side  there  is  a  strong  man,  poor,  and  a 
victim  of  robbery — on  the  other,  a  weak  man,  but 
rich,  and  a  robber — it  is  singular  enough,  that  we 
should  say  to  the  former,  with  a  hope  of  persuad- 
ing him,  "  Wait  till  your  oppressor  voluntarily  re- 
nounces oppression,  or  till  it  shall  cease  of  itself." 
This  cannot  be  ;  and  those  who  tell  us  that  capital 
is,  by  nature,  unproductive,  ought  to  know  that 
they  are  provoking  a  terrible  and  immediate  struggle. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  interest  of  capital  is  natu- 
ral, lawful,  consistent  with  the  general  good,  as 
favorable  to  the  borrower  as  to  the  lender,  the 
economists  who  deny  it,  the  tribunes  who  traffic  in 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  353 

this  pretended  social  wound,  are  leading  the  work- 
men into  a  senseless  and  unjust  struggle,  which  can 
have  no  other  issue  than  the  misfortune  of  all.  In 
fact,  they  are  arming  labor  against  capital.  So 
much  the  better,  if  these  two  powers  are  really 
antagonistic  ;  and  may  the  struggle  soon  be  ended  ! 
But  if  they  are  in  harmony,  the  struggle  is  the 
greatest  evil  which  can  be  inflicted,  on  society. 
You  see,  then,  workmen,  that  tliere  is  not  a  more 
important  question  than  this  :  "Is  the  interest  of 
capital  lawful  or  not?"  In  the  former  case,  you 
must  immediately  renounce  the  struggle  to  which 
you  are  being  urged  ;  in  the  second,  you  must  carry 
it  on  bravely,  and  to  the  end. 

Productiveness  of  capital — perpetuity  of  interest. 
These  are  difficult  questions.  I  must  endeavor  to 
make  myself  clear.  And  for  that  purpose  I  shall 
have  to  recourse  to  example  rather  than  to  demon- 
stration ;  or  rather,  I  shall  place  tlie  demonstration  in 
the  example.  I  begin  l)y  acknowledging  that,  at 
first  sight,  it  may  appear  strange  that  capital  should 
pretend  to  a  remuneration  ;  and,  above  all,  to  a 
perpetual  remuneration.  You  will  say,  "  Here  are 
two  men.  One  of  them  works  from  morning  till 
night,  from  one  year's  end  to  another  ;  and  if  he 
consumes  all  which  he  has  gained,  even  by  superior 
energy,  he  remains  poor.  When  Christmas  comes,  he 
is  no  forwarder  than  he  was  at  the  beginning  of  tlie 
year,  and  has  no  other  prospect  but  to  begin  again. 


354  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

The  other  man  does  nothing,  either  with  his  hands 
or  his  head  ;  or,  at  least,  if  he  makes  use  of  them  at 
all,  it  is  only  for  his  own  pleasure  ;  it  is  allowable 
for  him  to  do  nothing,  for  he  has  an  income.  He 
does  not  work,  yet  he  lives  well  ;  he  has  everything 
in  abundance,  delicate  dishes,  sumptuous  furniture, 
elegant  equipages  ;  nay,  he  even  consumes,  daily, 
things  which  the  workers  have  been  obliged  to  pro- 
duce by  the  sweat  of  their  brow  ;  for  these  things 
do  not  make  themselves  ;  and,  as  far  as  he  is  con- 
cerned, he  has  had  no  hand  in  their  production. 
It  is  the  workmen  who  have  caused  this  corn  to 
grow,  polished  this  furniture,  woven  these  carpets  ; 
it  is  our  wives  and  daugl iters  who  have  spun,  cut 
out,  sewed,  and  embroidered  these  stuffs.  We  work, 
then,  for  him  and  ourselves  ;  for  him  first,  and 
then  for  ourselves,  if  there  is  anything  left.  But 
here  is  something  more  striking  still.  If  the  former 
of  these  two  men,  the  worker,  consumes  within  the 
year  any  pi-ofit  which  may  have  been  left  him  in 
that  year,  he  is  always  at  the  point  from  wlu'cli  lie 
started,  and  his  destiny  condemns  him  to  move  in- 
cessantly in  a  perpetual  circle,  and  a  monotony  of 
exertion.  Labor,  then,  is  rewarded  only  once. 
But  if  the  other,  the  '  gentleman,  '  consumes  his 
yearly  income  in  tlie  year,  he  has,  the  year  after, 
in  those  which  follow,  and  through  all  eternity, 
an  income  always  equal,  inexhaustible,  perpétuai. 
Capital,   then,   is    remunerated,    not    only   once    or 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  355 

twice,  bat  an  indefinite  number  of  times  !  So  that, 
at  the  end  of  a  liundred  years,  a  family,  wliicli  has 
]>laced  20,000  francs,  at  five  per  cent,  will  have  had 
100,000  francs  ;  and  this  will  not  in'event  it  from' 
having  100,000  more  in  the  following  century.  In 
other  words,  for  20,000  francs,  which  represent  its 
labor,  it  will  have  levied,  in  two  centuries,  a  tenfold 
value  on  the  labor  of  others.  In  this  social  arrange- 
ment, js  there  not  a  monstrous  evil  to  be  reformed  ? 
And  this  is  not  all.  If  it  should  please  this  family 
to  curtail  its  enjoyments  a  little — to  spend,  for  ex- 
ample, only  900  francs,  instead  of  1000 — it  may, 
without  any  labor,  without  any  other  trouble  be- 
yond that  of  investing  100  francs  a  year,  increase  its 
capital  and  its  income  in  such  rapid  progression, 
tiiat  it  will  soon  be  in  a  position  to  consume  as 
much  as  a  hundred  families  of  industrious  work- 
men. Does  not  all  this  go  to  prove  that  society 
itself  has  in  its  bosom  a  hideous  cancer,  which 
ought  to  be  eradicated  at  the  risk  of  some  tem- 
porary suffering?" 

These  are,  it  appears  to  me,  the  sad  and  irritating 
reflections  which  must  be  excited  in  your  minds  by 
the  active  and  superficial  crusade  which  is  being 
carried  on  against  capital  and  interest.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  moments  in  which,  I  am  con- 
vinced, doubts  are  awakened  in  your  minds,  and 
scruples  in  your  conscience.  You  say  to  yourselves 
sometimes,  "  But  to  assert  that  capital  ought  not  to 


ij56  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

produce  interest,  is  to  say  that  lie  who  has  created 
instruments  of  labor,  or  materials,  or  provisions  of 
any  kind,  ought  to  yield  them  up  without  compen- 
sation. Is  that  just  ?  xVnd,  then,  if  it  is  so,  who 
would  lend  these  instruments,  these  materials,  these 
provisions  ?  who  would  take  care  of  them  ?  who  even 
would  create  them  ?  Every  one  would  consume  his 
proportion,  and  the  human  race  would  never  advance 
a  step.  Capital  would  be  no  longer  formed,  since 
there  would  be  no  interest  in  forming  it.  It  will 
become  exceedingly  scarce.  A  singular  step  toward 
gratuitous  loans  !  A  singular  means  of  improving 
the  condition  of  borrowers,  to  make  it  impossible 
for  them  to  borrow  at  any  price  !  What  would  be- 
come of  labor  itself  ?  for  there  will  be  no  money 
advanced,  and  not  one  single  kind  of  labor  can  be 
mentioned,  not  even  the  chase,  which  can  bo  pur- 
sued without  money  in  hand.  And,  as  for  ourselves, 
what  would  become  of  us  ?  What  !  we  are  not  to 
be  allowed  to  borrow,  in  order  to  work  in  the  prime 
of  life,  nor  to  lend,  that  we  may  enjoy  repose  in  its 
decline  ?  The  law  will  rob  us  of  the  prospect  of 
laying  by  a  little  property,  because  it  will  prevent 
us  from  gaining  any  advantage  from  it.  It  will  de- 
prive us  of  all  stimulus  to  save  at  the  present  time, 
and  of  all  hope  of  repose  for  the  future.  It  is  use- 
less to  exhaust  ourselves  with  fatigue  ;  we  must 
abandon  the  idea  of  leaving  our  sons  and  daughters 
a  little  property,  since   modern  science    lenJers  it 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEKEST.  357 

useless,  for  we  slioiild  become  traffickers  in  men  if 
we  were  to  lend  it  on  interest.  Alas  !  the  world 
which  these  persons  wonld  open  before  us  as  an 
imaginary  good,  is  still  more  dreary  and  desolate 
than  that  which  they  condemn,  for  hope,  at  any 
rate,  is  not  banished  from  the  latter."  Thus  in  all 
respects,  and  in  every  poiîit  of  view,  the  question  is 
a  serious  one.      Let  us  hasten  to  arrive  at  a  solution. 

Our  civil  code  has  a  chajiter  entitled,  "  On  the 
manner  of  transmitting  property."  I  do  not  think 
it  gives  a  very  complete  nomenclature  on  this  point. 
When  a  man  by  his  labor  has  made  S07ne  useful 
thing — in  other  words,  when  he  has  created  a  value 
■ — it  can  only  pass  into  the  liands  of  another  by  one 
of  the  following  modes  :  as  a  gift,  by  the  right  of 
inheritance,  by  exchange,  loan,  or  theft.  One  word 
upon  each  of  these,  except  the  last,  although  it 
plays  a  greater  part  in  the  world  than  we  may 
think. 

A  gift  needs  no  definition.  It  is  essentially 
voluntary  and  spontaneous.  It  depends  exclu- 
sively upon  the  giver,  and  the  receiver  cannot  be  said 
to  have  any  right  to  it.  Without  a  doubt,  morality 
and  religion  make  it  a  duty  for  men,  especially  the 
rich,  to  deprive  themselves  voluntarily  of  that  which 
they  possess,  in  favor  of  their  less  fortunate  brethren. 
But  this  is  an  entirely  moral  obligation.  If  it  were 
to  be  asserted  on  principle,  admitted  in  practice,  or 
sanctioned  by  law,  that  every  man  has  a  right  to  the 


358  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

property  of  iuiotlier,  tlic  gift  would  have  no  merit, 
charity  and  «jjratitude  would  be  no  longer  virtues. 
Besides,  siu^h  a  doctiine  wonhl  suddenly  and  uni- 
versally arrest  labor  and  production,  as  severe  cold 
congeals  water  and  suspends  animation,  for  who 
would  work  if  there  was  no  longer  to  l)e  any  connec- 
tion between  labor  and  the  satisfying  of  our  wants  ? 
Political  economy  has  not  treated  of  gifts.  It  has 
hence  been  concluded  that  it  disowns  them,  and  that 
it  is  therefore  a  science  devoid  of  heart.  This  is  a 
ridiculous  accusation.  That  science  Mdiich  treats  of 
the  laws  resulting  from  the  reciprocity  of  services^ 
had  no  business  to  inquire  into  the  consequences  of 
generosity  w^ith  respect  to  him  who  receives,  nor 
into  its  effects,  perhaps  still  more  precious,  on  him 
who  gives  ;  such  considerations  belong  evidently  to 
the  science  of  morals.  We  must  allow  the  sciences 
to  have  limits  ;  above  all,  we  must  not  accuse  them 
of  denying  or  undervaluing  what  they  look  upon  as 
foreign  to  their  department. 

The  right  of  inheritance,  against  wdiich  so  much 
has  been  objected  of  late,  is  one  of  the  forms  of 
gift,  and  assuredly  the  most  natural  of  all.  That 
which  a  man  has  produced,  he  may  consume,  ex- 
change, or  give  ;  what  can  be  more  natural  than 
that  he  should  give  it  to  his  children  ?  It  is  this 
power,  more  than  any  other,  which  inspires  him 
with  courage  to  labor  and  to  save.  Do  you  know 
why  the  principle  of   right  of  inheritance    is   thus 


CAITJAL    AND    INTÉKEST.  359 

called  in  question  ?  Because  it  is  imagined  that  the 
property  thus  transmitted  is  plundered  from  the 
masses.  This  is  a  fatal  error  ;  political  economy 
demonstrates,  in  the  most  peremptory  manner, 
that  all  value  produced  is  a  creation  which  does  no 
harm  to  any  person  whatever.  For  that  reason,  it 
may  be  consumed,  and,  still  more,  transmitted, 
without  hurting  any  one  ;  but  I  shall  not  pursue 
these  reflections,  which  do  not  belong  to  the  subject. 

Exchange  is  the  principal  department  of  political 
economy,  because  it  is  by  far  the  most  frecpient 
method  of  transmitting  property,  according  to  the 
free  and  voluntary  agreements  of  the  laws  and  ef- 
fects of  which  this  science  treats. 

Properly  speaking,  exchange  is  the  reciprocity  of 
services.  The  parties  sav  between  themselves, 
"Give  me  this,  and  I  will  give  you  that  ;"  or,  "  Do 
this  for  me,  and  I  will  do  that  for  you.  "  It  is  well 
to  remark  (for  this  will  throw  a  new  light  on  the 
notion  of  value)  that  the  second  form  is  always  im- 
plied in  the  first.  When  it  is  said,  ''  Do  this  for 
me,  and  I  will  do  that  for  you,"  an  exchange  of 
service  for  service  is  proposed.  Again,  when  it  is 
said,  "  Give  me  this,  and  I  will  give  you  that,"  it 
is  the  same  as  saying,  "  I  yield  to  you  what  1  have 
done,  yield  to  me  what  you  have  done."  The 
labor  is  past,  instead  of  present  ;  but  the  exchange 
is  not  the  less  governed  by  the  comparative  valua- 
tion of  the  two  services  ;   so  that  it  is  quite  correct 


860  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

to  say,  tliat  the  principle  of  value  is  in  the  services 
rendered  and  received  on  account  of  the  produc- 
tions exchanged,  rather  than  in  productions  them- 
selves. 

In  reality,  services  are  scarcely  ever  exchanged 
directly.  There  is  a  medium,  which  is  termed 
money.  Paul  has  completed  a  coat,  for  which  he 
wishes  to  receive  a  little  bread,  a  little  wine,  a  little 
oil,  a  visit  from  a  doctor,  a  ticket  for  the  play,  etc. 
The  exchange  cannot  be  effected  in  kind  ;  so  what 
does  Paul  do  ?  Tie  first  exchanges  his  coat  for 
some  money,  which  is  called  sale  y  then  he  exchanges 
this  money  again  for  the  things  which  he  wants, 
which  is  called  p^irchase ;  and  now,  only,  has  the 
reciprocity  of  services  completed  its  circuit  ;  now, 
only,  the  labor  and  the  compensation  are  balanced 
in  the  same  individual — "  I  have  done  this  for 
society,  it  has  done  that  for  me."  In  a  word,  it  is 
only  now  that  the  exchange  is  actually  accom- 
plished. Thus,  nothing  can  be  more  correct  than 
this  observation  of  J.  B.  Say  :  "  Since  the  intro- 
duction of  inonej',  every  exchange  is  resolved  into 
two  elements,  sale  and  purchase.  It  is  the  reunion 
of  these  two  elements  which  renders  the  exchange 
complete. 

AYe  must  remark,  also,  that  the  constant  appear- 
ance of  money  in  every  exchange  has  overturned 
and  misled  all  our  ideas  ;  men  have  ended  in  think- 
ing that  money  was  true  riches,  and  that  to  multi- 


CAPITAL    AXI)    INTKRRST.  361 

plj  it  was  to  multiply  services  and  prodncts.  Hence 
the  prohibitory  system  ;  hence  |)aper  money  ;  hence 
the  celebrated  aphorism,  "  Wliat  one  gains  the 
other  loses  ;"'  and  all  the  errors  which  have  ruined 
the  earth,  and  iinbrned  it  with  blood.*  After 
mnch  research  it  has  been  fonnd,  that  in  order  to 
make  the  two  services  exchanged  of  equivalent 
value,  and  in  order  to  render  the  exchange  equitable, 
the  best  means  was  to  allow  it  to  be  free.  How- 
ever plausible,  at  first  sight,  the  intervention  of  the 
State  might  be,  it  was  soon  perceived  that  it  is 
always  oppressive  to  one  or  other  of  the  contracting 
parties.  When  we  look  into  these  subjects,  we  are 
always  compelled  to  reason  upon  this  maxim,  that 
equal  'value  results  from  liberty.  We  have,  in  fact, 
no  other  means  of  knowing  whether,  at  a  given 
moment,  two  services  are  of  the  same  value,  but 
that  of  examining  whether  they  can  be  readily  and 
freely  exchanged.  Allow  the  State,  which  is  the 
same  thing  as  force,  to  interfere  on  one  side  or  the 
other,  and  from  that  moment  all  the  means  of 
appreciation  will  be  complicated  and  entangled, 
instead  of  becoming  clear.  It  ought  to  be  the  part 
of  the  State  to  prevent,  and,  above  all,  to  repress 
artifice  and  fraud  ;  that  is,  to  secure  liberty,  and 
not  to  violate  it.  I  have  enlarged  a  little  upon 
exchange,   although    loan  is    my  principal    object  ; 

*  This  error  will  be  combated  in  a  pamphlet,  entitled  "  Cursed  Money.'''' 


362  CAPITAL    AND    INTEKKST. 

my  excuse  is,  that  I  conceive  that  tliere  is  in  a  loan 
an  actual  exchange,  an  actual  service  rendered  by 
the  lender,  and  Avhich  makes  the  borrower  liable  to 
an  equivalent  service — two  services,  whose  com- 
parative value  can  only  be  appreciated,  like  that  of 
iill  possible  services,  by  freedom.  Now,  if  it  is  so, 
the  perfect  lawfulness  of  what  is  called  house-rent, 
farm-rent,  interest,  will  be  explained  and  justified. 
Let  us  consider  the  case  of  loan. 

Suppose  two  men  exchange  two  services  or  two 
objects,  whose  equal  value  is  beyond  all  dispute. 
Suppose,  for  example,  Peter  says  to  Paul,  "  Give 
me  ten  sixpences,  I  will  give  you  a  five-shilling 
piece."  We  cannot  imagine  an  equal  value  more 
unquestionable.  When  the  bargain  is  made, 
neither  party  has  any  claim  upon  the  other.  The 
exchanged  services  are  equal.  Thus  it  follows, 
that  if  one  of  the  parties  wishes  to  introduce  into  the 
bargain  an  additional  clause,  advantageous  to  him- 
self, but  unfavorable  to  the  other  party,  he  must 
agree  to  a  second  clause,  which  shall  re-establisli 
the  equilibrium,  and  the  law  of  justice.  It  would 
be  absurd  to  deny  the  justice  of  a  second  clause  of 
compensation.  This  granted,  we  will  suppose  that 
Peter,  after  having  said  to  Paul,  "  Give  me  ten 
sixpences,  I  wnll  give  you  a  crown,"  adds,  "you 
shall  give  me  the  ten  sixpences  noiv,  and  1  will  give 
you  the  crown-piece  in  a  year,''''  it  is  very  evident 
that  this  new   proposition  alters  th.e  claims  and  ad- 


CAPITAL    AND    INTKREST.  363 

vantages  of  tlie  bargain  ;  tliat  it  alters  the  propor- 
tion of  tlie  two  services.  Does  it  not  appear  plainly 
cnongli,  in  fact,  that  Peter  asks  of  Panl  a  new  and 
an  additional  service — one  of  a  different  kind  ?  Is 
it  not  as  if  he  had  said,  "  Render  nie  the  service  of 
allowing  me  to  use  for  my  profit,  for  a  year,  five  shil- 
lings which  belong  to  yon,  and  which  yon  might 
have  used  for  yourself  "  ?  And  what  good  reason 
have  you  to  maintain  that  Paul  is  bound  to  render 
this  especial  service  gratuitously — that  he  has  no 
right  to  demand  anything  more  in  consequence  of 
this  requisition  ;  that  the  State  ought  to  interfere  to 
force  him  to  submit  ?  Is  it  not  incomprehensible 
that  the  economist  who  preaches  such  a  doctrine  to 
the  people  can  reconcile  it  with  his  principle  of 
the  reciprocity  of  services  ?  Here  I  have  introduced 
cash  ;  I  have  been  led  to  do  so  by  a  desire  to  place, 
side  by  side,  two  objects  of  exchange,  of  a  perfect 
and  indisputable  equality  of  value.  I  was  anxious 
to  be  prepared  for  objections  ;  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  my  demonstration  would  have  been  more 
striking  still,  if  I  had  illustrated  my  principle  by  an 
agreement  for  exchanging  the  services  or  the  pro- 
ductions themselves. 

Suppose,  for  example,  a  house  and  a  vessel  of  a 
value  so  perfectly  equal  that  their  proprietors  are  dis- 
posed to  exchange  them  even-handed,  without  ex- 
cess or  abatement.  In  fact,  let  the  bargain  be  settled 
by  a  lawyer.     At  the  moment  of  each  taking  posses- 


3(54  CAI'ITAL    AND   INTEREST. 

sion,  the  sliip-owner  says  to  the  citizen,  "  Very  well  ; 
the  transaction  is  ootnpleted,  and  nothing  can  prove 
its  perfect  ecpiity  better  than  our  free  and  voluntary 
consent.  Our  conditions  thus  fixed,  I  shall  propose 
to  you  a  little  practical  modification.  You  shall  let 
me  have  your  house  to-day,  but  I  shall  not  put  you 
in  possession  of  my  ship  for  a  year  ;  and  the  reason 
I  make  this  demand  of  you  is,  that,  during  this  year 
of  delay ^  I  wish  to  use  the  vessel."  That  we  may 
not  be  embarrassed  by  considerations  relative  to  the 
deterioration  of  the  thing  lent,  I  will  suppose  the 
ship-owner  to  add,  "  I  will  engage,  at  the  end  of 
the  year,  to  hand  over  to  you  the  vessel  in  the  state 
in  which  it  is  to-day.''  I  ask  of  every  candid  man, 
I  ask  of  M.  Proudhon  himself,  if  the  citizen  has 
not  a  right  to  answer,  "  The  new  clause  which  you 
propose  entirely  alters  the  proportion  or  the  equal 
value  of  the  exchange  services.  By  it  I  shall  be  de- 
prived, for  the  space  of  a  year,  l)oth  at  once  of  my 
liouse  and  of  your  vessel.  By  it  you  will  make  use 
of  both.  If,  in  the  absence  of  this  clause,  the  bar- 
gain was  just,  for  the  same  reason  the  clause  is  inju- 
rious to  me.  It  stipulates  for  a  loss  to  me,  and  a 
gain  to  you.  You  are  requiring  of  me  a  new  ser- 
vice ;  I  have  a  right  to  refuse,  or  to  require  of  you, 
as  a  compensation,  an  equivalent  service."  If  the 
parties  are  agreed  upon  this  compensation,  the  prin- 
ciple of  which  is  incontestable,  we  can  easily  distin- 
guish two  transactions  in  one,  two  exchanges  of  ser- 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  366 

vice  in  one.  First,  there  is  the  exchange  of  tlie 
house  for  the  vessel  ;  after  this,  there  is  the  delay 
granted  by  one  of  the  parties,  and  the  compensation 
correspondent  to  this  delay  yielded  by  the  other. 
These  two  new  services  take  the  generic  and  abstract 
name  of  credit  and  interest.  But  names  do  not 
change  the  nature  of  things  ;  and  I  defy  any  one  to 
dare  to  maintain  that  there  exists  here,  when  all  is 
done,  a  service  for  a  service,  or  a  reciprocity  of  ser- 
vices. To  say  that  one  of  these  services  does  not 
challenge  the  other,  to  say  that  the  first  ought  to  be 
rendered  gratuitously,  without  injustice,  is  to  say 
that  injustice  consists  in  the  reciprocity  of  ser- 
vices— that  justice  consists  in  one  of  the  parties 
giving  and  not  receiving,  which  is  a  contradiction 
in  terms. 

To  give  an  idea  of  interest  and  its  mechanism, 
allow  me  to  make  use  of  two  or  three  anecdotes. 
But,  first,  I  must  say  a  few  words  upon  capital. 

There  are  some  persons  who  imagine  that  capital 
is  money,  and  this  is  precisely  the  reason  why  they 
deny  its  productiveness  ;  for,  as  M.  There  says, 
crowns  are  not  endowed  with  the  power  of  repro- 
ducing themselves.  But  it  is  not  true  that  capital 
and  money  are  the  same  thing.  Before  the  dis- 
covery of  the  precious  metals,  there  were  capitalists 
in  the  world  ;  and  1  venture  to  say  that  at  that 
time,  as  now,  everybody  was  a  capitalist,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent. 


366  CAPITAL    AND    IXTEKEST. 

What  is  capital,  tlien  ?  It  is  coinposeJ  of  three 
things  : 

1st.  Of  the  materials  upon  which  men  operate, 
Mheii  these  'materials  liave  already  a  value  commu- 
nicated by  some  human  effort,  which  has  bestowed 
V'.pon  them  the  principle  of  remuneration — wool, 
flax,  leather,  silk,  wood,  etc. 

■    2d.     Instruments  which  are  used  for  working — 
tools,  machines,  shijjs,  carriages,  etc. 

3d.  Provisions  which  are  consumed  during  labor 
— victuals,  stuffs,  houses,  etc. 

Witliout  these  things,  the  labor  of  man  would  be 
unproductive,  and  almost  void  ;  yet  these  very 
things  have  required  nuich  work,  especially  at  first. 
This  is  the  reason  that  so  tnuch  value  has  been 
attached  to  the  possession  of  them,  and  also  that  it 
is  perfectly  lawful  to  exchange  and  to  sell  them,  to 
make  a  profit  of  them  if  used,  to  gain  remuneration 
from  them  if  lent. 

Now  for  my  anecdotes. 

THE    SACK    OF    CORN. 

Mathurin,  in  other  respects  as  poor  as  Job,  and 
obliged  to  earn  his  bread  by  day-labor,  became, 
nevertheless,  by  some  inheritance,  the  owner  of  a 
fine  piece  of  uncultivated  land.  He  was  exceed- 
ingly anxious  to  cultivate  it.  "Alas!"  said  he, 
"  to  make  ditches,  to  raise  fences,  to  break  the  soil, 
to  clear  away  the  brambles  and  stone,  to  plough  it, 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  367 

to  SOW  it,  might  bring  me  a  living  in  a  year  or  two  ; 
Lut  certainly  not  to-day,  or  to-morrow.  It  i.s  im- 
possible to  set  about  farming  it,  without  previously 
saving  some  provisions  for  my  subsistences  until 
the  harvest  ;  and  I  know,  by  experience,  that  pre- 
paratory labor  is  indispensable,  in  order  to  render 
present  labor  productive."  The  good  Mathurin 
was  not  content  with  making  these  reflections.  He 
resolved  to  work  by  the  day,  and  to  save  something 
from  his  wages  to  buy  a  spade  and  a  sack  of  corn  ; 
without  which  things,  he  nmst  give  up  his  fine 
agricultural  projects.  He  acted  so  well,  was  so 
active  and  steady,  that  he  soon  saw  himself  in  pos- 
session of  the  wished-for  sack  of  corn.  "  I  shall 
take  it  to  the  mill,'  '  said  he,  "  and  then  I  shall  have 
enough  to  live  upon  till  my  field  is  covered  with  a 
rich  harvest."  Just  as  he  was  starting,  Jerome 
came  to  borrow  his  treasure  of  him.  "  If  you  will 
lend  me  this  sack  of  corn,"  said  Jerome,  "you  will 
do  me  a  great  service  ;  for  I  have  some  very  lucra- 
tive work  in  view,  which  I  cannot  possibly  under- 
take, for  want  of  provisions  to  live  upon  until  it  is 
finished."  "I  was  in  the  same  case,"  answered 
Mathurin,  "  and  if  I  have  now  secured  bread  for 
several  months,  it  is  at  the  expense  of  my  arms 
and  my  stomach.  Upon  what  principle  of  justice 
can  it  be  devoted  to  the  realization  of  your  enter- 
prise instead  of  mine  V 

You  may  well  believe  that  the  bargain  was  a  long 


P>C)S  CAPITAI-    AND    INTKKKST. 

one.  However,  it  w;is  finished  at  length,  and  on 
these  conditions  : 

First.  Jerome  promised  to  give  back,  at  tlie  end 
of  tlie  year,  a  sack  of  corn  of  the  same  quality, 
and  of  the  same  weight,  without  missing  a  single 
grain.  "  This  first  clause  is  perfectly  just,"  said  he, 
"  for  without  it  Mathurin  would  give  and  not  leîid.''^ 

Secondly.  lie  engaged  to  deli  ver  ^ve  litres  on 
every  hectolitre.  "This  clause  is  no  less  just  than 
the  other,"  thought  he  ;  "  for  without  it  Mathurin 
would  do  me  a  service  without  compensation  ;  he 
would  inflict  upon  himself  a  privation — he  would 
renounce  his  cherished  enterprise — he  would  enable 
me  to  accomplish  mine — he  would  cause  me  to 
enjoy  for  a  year  the  fruits  of  his  savings,  and  all 
this  gratuitously.  Since  he  delays  the  cultivation 
of  his  land,  since  he  enables  me  to  realize  a  lucra- 
tive labor,  it  is  quite  natural  that  I  should  let  him 
partake,  in  a  certain  proportion,  of  the  profits 
which  I  shall  gain  by  the  sacrifice  he  makes  of  his 
own." 

On  his  side,  Mathurin,  who  was  something  of  a 
scholar,  made  this  calculation  :  "  Since,  by  virtue 
of  the  first  clause,  the  sack  of  corn  will  return  to 
me  at  the  end  of  a  year,"  he  said  to  himself,  "I 
shall  be  able  to  lend  it  again  ;  it  will  return  to  meat 
the  end  of  the  second  year  ;  I  may  lend  it  again, 
and  so  on,  to  all  eternit3\  However,  I  cannot  deny 
that  it  will  have  been  eaten  long  ago.     It  is  singular 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  369 

tliat  I  should  be  perpetually  the  owner  of  a  sack 
of  corn,  although  the  one  I  have  lent  has  been  con- 
sunieil  for  ever.  But  this  is  explained  thus  :  It 
will  be  consumed  in  the  service  of  Jerome.  It  will 
jjut  it  into  the  power  (;f  Jerome  to  produce  a  supe- 
rior value  ;  and,  consequently,  Jerome  will  be  able 
to  restore  me  a  sack  of  corn,  or  the  value  of  it, 
without  having  suffered  the  slightest  injury  ;  but 
quite  the  contrary.  And  as  regards  myself,  this 
value  ought  to  be  my  property,  as  long  as  I  do  not 
consume  it  myself  ;  if  1  had  used  it  to  clear  my 
land,  1  should  have  received  it  again  in  the  form  of 
u  fine  harvest.  Instead  of  that,  I  lend  it,  and  shall 
recover  it  in  the  form  of  repayment. 

"From  the  second  clause,  I  gain  another  piece 
of  information.  At  the  end  of  the  year  I  shall 
bo  'a  possession  of  live  litres  of  corn  over  the  100 
that  I  have  just  lent.  If,  then,  I  were  to  continue  to 
work  by  the  day,  and  to  save  a  part  of  my  wages,  as 
I  have  been  doing,  in  the  course  of  time  I  should 
be  able  to  lend  two  sacks  of  corn  ;  then  three  ;  then 
four  ;  and  when  I  should  have  gained  a  sufficient 
number  to  enable  me  to  live  on  these  additions  of 
five  litres  over  and  above  each,  I  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  take  a  little  repose  in  my  old  age.  But  how  is 
this?  In  this  case,  shall  I  not  be  living  at  the  ex- 
pense of  others  ?  No,  certainly,  for  it  has  been 
proved  that  in  lending  I  perform  a  service  ;  I  com- 
plete the  labor  of   mv  bon-owers,  and  only  deduct  a 


370  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

trifling  part  of  the  excess  of  production,  due  to  xny 
lendings  and  savings.  It  is  a  marvellous  thing,  thaf 
a  man  may  thus  realize  a  leisure  which  injures  nc 
one,  and  for  which  he  cannot  be  envied  without  in- 
justice. " 

THE    HOUSE. 

Mondor  had  a  house.  In  building  it  he  had  ex- 
torted nothing  from  any  one  whatever.  He  owed 
it  to  his  own  personal  labor,  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  to  labor  justly  rewarded.  His  first  care  was 
to  make  a  bargain  with  an  architect,  in  virtue  of 
which,  by  means  of  a  hundred  crowns  a  year,  the 
latter  engaged  to  keep  the  house  in  constant  good 
repair.  Mondor  was  already  congratulating  him- 
self on  the  happy  days  which  he  hoped  to  spend  in 
this  retreat,  declared  sacred  by  our  Constitution. 
But  Valerius  wished  to  make  it  his  residence.  "  How 
can  you  think  of  such  a  thing  ?"  said  Mondor  ;  "it 
is  I  who  have  built  it  ;  it  has  cost  me  ten  years  of 
painful  labor,  and  now  you  would  enjoy  it  !"  They 
agreed  to  refer  the  matter  to  judges.  They  chose 
no  profound  economist — there  were  none  such  in 
the  country.  But  they  found  some  just  and  sensible 
men  ;  it  all  comes  to  the  same  thing  :  political 
economy,  justice,  good  sense,  are  all  the  same  thing. 
Now  here  is  the  decision  made  by  the  judges  :  If 
Valerius  wishes  to  occupy  Mondor's  house  for  a 
year,  he  is    bound  to  submit  to  three    conditions. 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  3Yl 

The  first  is,  to  quit  at  the  end  of  the  year,  and  to 
restore  the  house  in  good  repair,  saving  the  inevita- 
ble decay  resulting  from  mere  duration.  The  sec- 
ond, to  refund  to  Mondor  the  300  francs,  which 
the  latter  pays  annually  to  the  architect  to  repair 
the  injuries  of  time  ;  for  these  injuries  taking  ]3lace 
whilst  the  house  is  in  the  service  of  Valerius,  it  is 
perfectly  just  that  he  should  bear  the  consequences. 
The  third,  that  he  should  render  to  Mondor  a  ser- 
vice equivalent  to  that  which  he  receives.  As  to 
this  equivalence  of  services,  it  must  be  freely  dis- 
cussed between  Mondor  and  Valerius. 

THE    PLANE. 

A  very  long  time  ago  there  lived,  in  a  poor  vil- 
lage, a  joiner,  who  was  a  philosopher,  as  all  my 
heroes  are,  in  their  way.  James  worked  from  moiTi- 
iug  till  night  with  his  two  strong  arms,  but  his  brain 
was  not  idle,  for  all  that.  He  was  fond  of  review- 
ing his  actions,  their  causes,  and  their  effects.  He 
sometimes  said  to  himself,  "With  my  hatchet  my 
saw,  and  my  hainmer,  1  can  make  only  coarse  furni- 
ture, and  can  only  get  the  pay  for  such.  If  I  only 
had  2i  plane,  I  should  please  my  customers  more,  and 
they  would  pay  me  more.  It  is  quite  just  :  I  can 
only  expect  services  proportioned  to  those  which  I 
render  myself.  Yes  !  I  am  resolved,  I  will  make 
myself  a  plane.  '  ' 


372  CAPITAL    AXD    INTERKST. 

However,  just  as  lie  was  setting  to  work,  James  re- 
flected further  :  "I  work  for  my  customers  300  days 
in  tlie  year.  If  I  give  ten  to  making  my  plane,  sup- 
posing it  lasts  me  a  year,  only  290  days  will  remain 
for  me  to  make  my  furniture.  Now  in  order  that  1 
be  not  the  loser  in  this  matter,  I  must  gain  hence- 
forth, with  the  help  of  the  plane,  as  much  in  290 
days,  as  I  now  do  in  300.  1  must  even  gain  more  ; 
for  unless  I  do  so,  it  would  not  be  worth  my  Mdiile 
to  venture  upon  any  innovations."  James  began 
to  calculate.  lie  satisfied  himself  that  he  should 
sell  his  finished  furniture  at  a  j^rice  which  would 
amply  compensate  for  the  ten  days  devoted  to  the 
plane  ;  and  when  no  doubt  remained  on  this  point, 
he  set  to  work.  I  l)eg  the  reader  to  remark,  that 
the  power  which  exists  in  the  tool  to  increase  the 
productiveness  of  labor,  is  the  basis  of  the  solution 
which  follows. 

At  the  end  of  ten  days  James  had  in  his  possession 
an  admirable  plane,  which  he  valued  all  the  more  for 
having  made  it  himself.  lie  danced  for  joy — for, 
like  the  girl  with  her  basket  of  eggs,  he  reckoned  all 
the  profits  which  he  expected  to  derive  from  the  in- 
genious instrument  ;  but,  more  fortunate  than  she, 
he  was  not  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  saying  good- 
by  to  calf,  cow,  pig,  and  eggs,  together.  He  was 
building  his  fine  castles  in  the  air,  when  he  v/as  in- 
terrupted by  his  acquaintance,  William,  a  joiner  in 
the  neia-hboriuir  villai^e.     William   having  admired 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  373 

the  plane,  was  struck  with  the  advantages  which 
might  be  gained  from  it.     He  said  to  James  : 

W.  Yon  must  do  me  a  service. 

tl.  What  service  ? 

W.  Lend  me  the  plane  for  a  year. 

As  might  be  expected,  James  at  this  proposal  did 
not  fail  to  cry  out,  "How  can  you  think  of  such  a 
thing,  William  ?  Well,  if  I  do  you  this  service, 
what  will  you  do  for  me  in  return  ?" 

W.  IS^othing.  Don't  you  know  that  a  loan  ought 
to  be  gratuitous  ?  Don't  you  know  that  capital  is 
naturally  unproductive  ?  Don't  you  know  fraternity 
has  been  proclaimed  ?  If  you  only  do  me  a  service 
for  the  sake  of  receiving  one  from  me  in  return, 
what  merit  would  you  have  ? 

e/.  William,  my  friend,  fraternity  does  not  mean 
that  all  the  sacrifices  are  to  be  on  one  side  ;  if  so,  I 
do  not  see  why  they  should  not  be  on  yours.  Wheth- 
er a  loan  should  be  gratuitous  I  don't  know  ;  but 
I  do  know  that  if  I  were  to  lend  you  mj^  plane  for 
a  year,  it  would  be  giving  it  to  you.  To  tell  you 
the  truth,  that  is  not  what  I  made  it  for. 

W.  Well,  we  will  say  nothing  about  the  modern 
maxims  discovered  by  the  Socialist  gentlemen.  I  ask 
you  to  do  me  a  service  ;  what  service  do  you  ask  of 
me  in  return  ? 

J.  First,  then,  in  a  year,  the  plane  will  be  done 
for,  it  will  be  good  for  nothing.  It  is  only  just  that 
you  should  let  me  have  another  exactly  like  it,  or  that- 


374:  CAPITAL    AM)    INTERKST. 

yon  should  give  ino  money  enougli  to  get  it  repaired, 
or  that  you  should  supply  mo  the  ten  days  which  1 
must  devote  to  replacing  it. 

W.  This  is  perfectly  just.  I  submit  to  these 
conditions.  1  engage  to  return  it,  or  .to  let  you  have 
one  like  it,  or  the  value  of  the  same.  I  think  you 
must  be  satisfied  with  this,  and  can  require  nothing 
further. 

e/.  I  think  otherwise.  I  made  the  plane  for  my- 
self, and  not  for  you.  I  expected  to  gain  some  ad- 
vantage from  it,  by  my  work  being  better  finished 
and  better  paid,  by  an  improvement  in  my  condi- 
tion. What  reason  is  there  that  I  should  make  the 
plane,  and  you  should  gain  the  profit  ?  I  might  as 
well  ask  you  to  give  rne  your  saw  and  hatchet  ! 
AVhat  a  confusion  !  Is  it  not  natural  that  each 
should  keep  what  he  has  made  with  his  own  hands, 
as  well  as  his  hands  themselves  ?  To  use  without 
recompense  the  hands  of  another,  I  call  slavery  ;  to 
use  without  recompense  tlie  plane  of  another,  can 
this  be  called  fraternity  ? 

W.  But,  then,  I  have  agreed  to  return  it  to  you 
at  the  end  of  a  year,  as  well  polished  and  as  sharp 
as  it  is  now. 

J.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  next  year  ;  we 
are  speaking  of  this  year.  I  have  made  the  plane 
for  the  sake  of  improving  my  work  and  my  condi- 
tion ;  if  you  merely  return  it  to  me  in  a  year,  it  is 
you  who  will  gain  the  profit  of  it  during  the  whole 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  375 

of  that  time.  1  am  not  bound  to  do  yon  such  a 
service  witliout  receiving  anything  from  yon  in 
return  ;  tliereforc,  if  you  wish  for  my  plane,  inde- 
pendently of  the  entire  restoration  already  bar- 
gained for,  you  must  do  me  a  service  which  we  will 
now  discuss  ;  you  must  grant  me  remuneration. 

And  this  was  done  thus  :  William  o-ranted  a 
remuneration  calculated  in  such  a  way  that,  at  the 
end  of  the  year,  James  received  his  plane  quite 
new,  and  in  addition,  a  compensation,  consisting  of 
a  new  plank,  for  the  advantages  of  which  he  had 
deprived  himself,  and  which  he  had  yielded  to  his 
friend. 

It  was  impossible  for  any  one  acquainted  with 
the  transaction  to  discover  the  slightest  trace  in  it 
of  oppression  or  injustice. 

The  singular  part  of  it  is,  that,  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  the  plane  came  into  James's  possession,  and 
he  lent  it  again  ;  recovered  it,  and  lent  it  a  third 
and  fourth  time.  It  has  passed  into  the  hands  of 
his  son,  who  still  lends  it.  Poor  plane  !  how  many 
times  has  it  changed,  sometimes  its  blade,  some- 
times its  handle.  It  is  no  longer  the  same  plane, 
but  it  has  always  the  same  value,  at  least  for  James's 
posterity.  Workmen  !  let  us  examino  into  these 
little  stories. 

1  maintain,  first  of  all,  that  the  sack  of  corn  and 
the  plane  are  here  the  type,  the  model,  a  faithful 
representation,  the  symbol,  of  all  capital  ;    as  the 


376  CAPITAL    AND    INTEBEBl. 

five  litres  of  corn  and  the  plank  are  the  type,  the 
model,  the  representation,  the  symbol,  of  all  inter- 
est. This  granted,  the  following  are,  it  seems  to 
me,  a  series  of  consequences,  the  justice  of  wliich 
it  is  impossible  to  disj^ute. 

1st.  If  the  yielding  of  a  plank  by  the  borrower 
to  the  lender  is  a  natural,  equitable,  lawful  remu- 
neration, the  just  price  of  a  real  service,  we  may 
conclude  that,  as  a  genei*al  rule,  it  is  in  the  nature 
of  capital  to  produce  interest.  When  this  capital, 
as  in  the  foregoing  examples,  takes  the  form  of  an 
instrument  oflahor,  it  is  clear  enough  that  it  ought 
to  bring  an  advantage  to  its  possessor,  to  him  who 
has  devoted  to  it  his  time,  his  brains,  and  his 
strength.  Otherwise,  why  should  he  have  made 
it  ?  JSTo  necessity  of  life  can  be  immediately 
satisfied  with  instruments  of  labor  ;  no  rf)ne  eats 
planes  or  drinks  saws,  except,  indeed,  he  be  a  con- 
jurer. If  aman  determines  to  spend  his  time  in  the 
production  of  such  things,  he  must  liave  been  led 
to  it  by  the  consideration  of  the  power  which  these 
instruments  add  to  his  power  ;  of  the  time  which 
they  save  him  ;  of  the  perfection  and  rapidity  which 
they  give  to  his  labor  ;  in  a  word,  of  the  advan- 
tages which  they  procure  for  him.  Now,  these 
advantages,  which  have  been  prepared  by  labor, 
by  the  sacrifice  of  time  which  might  have  been 
used  in  a  more  immediate  manner,  are  we  bound, 
as  soon  as  they  are  ready  to  be  enjoyed,  to  confer 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  377 

them  gratuitously  upon  .another  ?  Woukl  it  be  an 
advance  in  social  order,  if  the  law  decided  thus, 
and  citizens  should  pay  officials  for  causing  such 
a  law  to  be  executed  by  force  ?  I  venture  to  say, 
that  there  is  not  one  amongst  yon  who  would 
support  it.  It  would  be  to  legalize,  to  organize,  to 
systematize  injustice  itself,  for  it  would  be  proclaim- 
ing that  there  are  men  born  to  render,  and  others 
born  to  receive,  gratuitous  services.  Granted,  then, 
that  interest  is  just,  natural,  and  lawful. 

2d.  A  second  consequence,  not  less  remarkable 
than  the  former,  and,  if  possible,  still  more  conclu- 
sive, to  which  I  call  your  attention,  is  this  :  interest 
is  not  injurious  to  the  borrower.  I  mean  to  say,  the 
obligation  in  which  the  borrower  finds  himself,  to 
pay  a  remuneration  for  the  use  of  capital,  cannot 
do  any  harm  to  his  condition.  Observe,  in  fact, 
that  James  and  AYilliam  are  perfectly  free,  as 
regards  the  transaction  to  which  the  plane  gave 
occasion.  The  transaction  cannot  be  accomplished 
■without  the  consent  of  the  one  as  well  as  of  the 
otlier.  The  worst  which  can  happen  is,  that  James 
may  be  too  exacting  ;  and  in  this  case,  William, 
refusing  the  loan,  remains  as  he  was  before.  By 
the  fact  of  his  agreeing  to  borrow,  he  proves  that 
he  considers  it  an  advantage  to  himself  ;  he  proves 
tiiat  after  every  calculation,  including  the  remu- 
neration, whatever  it  may  be,  required  of  him,  he 
still  finds  it  more  profitable  to  borrow  than  not  to 


378  CAPITAL    AXn    INTEREST. 

borrow.  He  only  determines  to  do  bo  hecanse  he 
has  compared  the  inconveniences  with  the  advan- 
tages. He  has  calculated  that  the  day  on  which 
he  retnrns  the  plane,  accompanied  by  the  rémunéra- 
tion agreed  upon,  he  will  have  effected  more  work, 
with  the  same  labor,  thanks  to  this  tool.  A  profit 
will  remain  to  him,  otherwise  he  would  not  have 
borrowed.  The  two  services  of  which  we  are  S{)eak- 
ing  are  exchanged  according  to  the  law  wliicli 
governs  all  exchanges,  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand. The  claims  of  James  have  a  natural  and 
impassable  limit.  This  is  the  point  in  which  the 
remuneration  demanded  by  him  MT)uld  absorb  all 
the  advantage  which  William  might  find  in  making 
use  of  a  plane.  In  this  case,  the  borrowing  would 
not  take  place.  William  would  be  bound  either  to 
make  a  plane  for  himself,  or  to  do  without  one, 
which  would  leave  him  in  his  original  condition. 
He  borrows  because  he  gains  by  borrowing.  I 
know  very  well  what  will  be  told  me.  You  will 
say,  William  may  be  deceived,  or,  perhaps,  he  may 
be  governed  by  necessity,  and  be  obliged  to  submit 
to  a  harsh  law. 

It  may  be  so.  As  to  errors  in  calculation,  they 
belong  to  the  infirmity  of  our  nature,  and  to  argue 
from  this  against  the  transaction  in  question,  is 
objecting  the  possibility  of  loss  in  all  imaginable 
transactions,  in  every  human  act.  Error  is  an  acci- 
dental fact,  which  is  incessantly  remedied  by  expe- 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEKEST.  379 

rience.  In  short,  everybody  must  guard  against  it. 
As  far  as  those  hard  necessities  are  concerned, 
which  force  persons  to  burdensome  borrowings,  it 
is  clear  that  these  necessities  exist  previously  to 
the  borrowing.  If  "William  is  in  a  situation  in 
which  he  cannot  possibly  do  without  a  plane,  and 
must  borrow  one  at  any  price,  does  this  situation 
result  from  James  having  taken  the  trouble  to 
make  the  tool  ?  Does  it  not  exist  independently 
of  this  circumstance  ?  However  harsh,  however 
severe  James  may  be,  he  will  never  render  the  sup- 
]30sed  condition  of  William  worse  than  it  is. 
Morally,  it  is  true,  the  lender  will  be  to  blame  ; 
but,  in  an  economical  point  of  view,  the  loan  itself 
can  never  be  considered  responsible  for  previous 
necessities,  which  it  has  not  created,  and  which  it 
relieves,  to  a  certain  extent. 

But  this  proves  something  to  which  I  shall 
return.  The  evident  interests  of  William,  repre- 
senting here  the  borrowers,  there  are  many  Jameses 
and  planes.  In  other  words,  lenders  and  capitals. 
It  is  very  evident,  that  if  William  can  say  to 
James,  "  Your  demands  are  exorbitant  ;  there  is 
no  lack  of  planes  in  the  world  ;''  he  will  be  in  a 
better  situation  than  if  James's  plane  was  the  only 
one  to  be  borrowed.  Assuredly,  there  is  no  maxim 
more  true  tlian  this — service  for  service.  But  let 
us  not  forget,  that  no  service  has  a  fixed  and  abso- 
lute value,  compared  with  others.     The  contracting 


380  CAPITAL    AXD    INTEREST. 

parties  arc  free.  Each  carries  his  requisitions  to 
the  farthest  possible  point  ;  and  the  most  favorable 
circumstance  for  these  requisitions  is  the  absence 
of  rivalship.  Hence  it  follows,  tliat  if  there  is  a 
class  of  men  more  interested  than  any  other,  in 
the  formation,  mnltij^lication,  and  abundance  of 
capital,  it  is  mainly  that  of  the  borrowers.  Now, 
since  capital  can  only  be  formed  and  increased  by 
the  stimulus  and  the  prospect  of  remuneration,  let 
this  class  understand  the  injury  they  are  inflicting 
on  themselves,  when  they  deny  the  lawfulness  of 
interest,  when  they  proclaim  that  credit  should  be 
gratuitous,  when  they  declaim  against  the  pre- 
tended tyranny  of  capital,  when  they  discourage 
saving,  thns  forcing  capital  to  become  scarce,  and 
consequently  interest  to  rise. 

3d.  The  anecdote  I  have  just  related  enables 
you  to  explain  this  apparently  singular  phenome- 
non, which  is  termed  the  duration  or  perpetuity 
of  interest.  Since,  in  lending  his  plane,  James 
has  been  able,  very  lawfully,  to  make  it  a  condition 
that  it  should  be  returned  to  him  at  the  end  of  a 
year,  in  the  same  state  in  which  it  was  when  he 
lent  it,  is  it  not  evident  that  he  may,  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  term,  lend  it  again  on  the  same  condi- 
tions ?  If  he  resolves  upon  the  latter  plan,  the 
plane  will  return  to  him  at  the  end  of  every  year, 
and  that  without  end.  James  will  then  be  in  a 
condition  to  lend  it  without  end  ;  that  is,  he  may 


CAPITAL    AND    INTICREST.  381 

derive  from  it  a  perpetual  interest.  It  M^ill  be  said, 
that  the  plane  will  be  worn  out.  That  is  true  ;  but 
it  will  be  worn  out  by  the  hand  and  for  the  profit 
of  the  borrower.  The  latter  has  taken  into  account 
this  gradual  wear,  and  taken  upon  himself,  as  he 
ought,  the  consequences.  He  has  reckoned  that 
he  shall  derive  from  this  tool  an  advantage,  which 
will  allow  him  to  restore  it  in  its  original  condition, 
after  having  realized  a  profit  from  it.  As  long  as 
James  does  not  use  this  capital  himself,  or  for  his 
own  advantage— as  long  as  he  renounces  the  advan- 
tages which  allow  it  to  be  restored  to  its  original 
condition— he  will  have  an  incontestable  right  to 
have  it  restored,  and  that  independently  of  interest. 
Observe,  besides,  that  if,  as  I  believe  I  have 
shown,  James,  far  from  doing  any  harm  to  William, 
has  done  him  a  service  in  lending  him  his  plane  for 
a  year  ;  for  the  same  reason,  he  will  do  no  harm  to 
a  second,  a  third,  a  fourth  borrower,  in  the  subse- 
cpient  periods.  Hence  you  may  understand  that 
the  interest  of  a  capital  is  as  natural,  as  lawful,  as 
useful,  in  the  thousandth  year  as  in  the  first.  We 
may  go  still  farther.  It  may  happen  that  James 
lends  more  than  a  single  plane.  It  is  possible, 
that  by  means  of  working,  of  saving,  of  privations, 
of  order,  of  activity,  he  may  come  to  lend  a  nmlti- 
tude  of  planes  and  saws  ;  that  is  to  say,  to  do  a 
multitude  of  services.  I  insist  upon  this  point — 
that  if  the  first  loan  has  been  a  social  good,  it  will  be 


382  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

tlic  same  with  all  the  others  ;  for  they  are  all  simi- 
lar, and  based  upon  the  same  principle.  It  may 
happen,  then,  that  the  amount  of  all  the  remuner- 
ations received  by  our  honest  operative,  in  ex- 
change for  services  rendered  by  Lim,  may  suffice 
to  maintain  him.  In  this  case,  there  will  be  a  man 
in  the  world  Mdio  has  a  right  to  live  without  work- 
ing. I  do  not  say  that  he  would  be  doing  right 
to  give  himself  up  to  idleness — but  I  say  that  he 
has  a  right  to  do  so  ;  and  if  he  does  so,  it  will  be 
at  nobody's  expense,  but  quite  the  contrary.  If 
society  at  all  understands  the  nature  of  things,  it 
will  acknowledge  that  this  man  subsists  on  services 
which  he  receives  certainly  (as  we  all  do),  but 
which  he  lawfully  receives  in  exchange  for  other 
services  which  he  himself  has  rendered,  that  he 
continues  to  render,  and  which  are  quite  real,  inas- 
much as  they  are  freely  and  voluntarily  accepted. 

And  here  we  have  a  glimpse  of  one  of  the  finest 
harmonies  in  the  social  world.  I  allude  to  leisure  : 
not  that  leisure  that  the  warlike  and  tyrannical 
classes  arrange  for  themselves  by  the  plunder  of 
the  workers,  but  that  leisure  which  is  the  lawful 
and  innocent  fruit  of  past  activity  and  economy. 
In  exj)ressing  myself  thus,  I  know  that  I  shall 
shock  many  received  ideas.  But  see  !  Is  not 
leisure  an  essential  spring  in  the  social  machine  ? 
Without  it  the  world  would  never  have  had  a 
Newton,    a   Pascal,    a   Fénelon  ;    mankind    would 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  383 

have  been  ignorant  of  all  arts,  sciences,  and  of  those 
wonderful  inventions,  prepared  originally  bj  inves- 
tigations of  mere  curiosity  ;  thought  would  have 
been  inert — man  would  have  made  no  progress.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  leisure  could  only  be  explained 
by  plunder  and  oppression — if  it  were  a  benefit 
which  could  only  be  enjoyed  unjustly,  and  at  the 
ex]:^nse  of  others,  there  would  be  no  middle  path 
between  these  two  evils  ;  either  mankind  would  be 
reduced  to  the  necessity  of  stagnating  in  a  vegeta- 
ble and  stationary  life,  in  eternal  ignorance,  from 
the  absence  of  wheels  to  its  machine  —or  else  it 
would  have  to  acquire  these  wheels  at  the  price  of 
inevitable  injustice,  and  would  necessarily  present 
the  sad  spectacle,  in  one  form  or  other,  of  the 
antique  classification  of  human  beings  into  Masters 
and  Slaves.  I  defy  any  one  to  show  me,  in  this 
case,  any  other  alternative.  We  should  be  com- 
pelled to  contemplate  the  Divine  plan  which  gov- 
erns society,  with  the  regret  of  thinking  that  it 
presents  a  deplorable  chasm.  The  stimulus  of 
progress  would  be  forgotten,  or,  which  is  worse,  this 
stimulus  would  be  no  other  than  injustice  itself. 
But,  no  !  God  has  not  left  such  a  chasm  in  His 
work  of  love.  We  must  take  care  not  to  disregard 
His  wisdom  and  power  ;  for  those  whose  imper- 
fect meditations  cannot  explain  the  lawfulness  of 
leisure,  are  very  nmch  like  the  astronomer  who  said 
at  a  certain  point   in  the  heavens  there  ought  to 


384  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

exist  a  planet  which  will  be  at  last  discovered,  for 
without  it  the  celestial  world  is  not  harmony,  but 
discord. 

Well,  I  say  that,  if  well  understood,  the  history 
of  my  humble  plane,  although  very  modest,  is  suffi- 
cient to  raise  us  to  the  contemplation  of  one  of  the 
most  consoling,  but  least  understood,  of  the  social 
harmonies.  % 

It  is  not  true  that  we  must  choose  between  the 
denial  or  the  unlawfulness  of  leisure  ;  thanks  to 
rent  and  its  natural  duration,  leisure  may  arise 
from  labor  and  saving.  It  is  a  pleasing  prospect, 
which  every  one  may  have  in  view  ;  a  noble  recom- 
pense, to  which  each  may  aspire.  It  makes  its 
appearance  in  the  world  ;  it  distributes  itself  pro- 
portionably  to  the  exercise  of  certain  virtues  ;  it 
opens  all  the  avenues  to  intelligence  ;  it  ennobles,  it 
raises  the  morals  ;  it  spiritualizes  the  soul  of  human- 
ity, not  only  without  laying  any  weight  on  those 
of  our  bretliren  whose  lot  in  life  devotes  them  to 
severe  labor,  but  relieving  them  gradually  from 
the  heaviest  and  most  repugnant  part  of  this  labor. 
It  is  enough  that  capitals  should  be  formed,  accu- 
mulated, multiplied  ;  should  be  lent  on  conditions 
less  and  less  burdensome  ;  that  they  should  descend, 
penetrate  into  every  social  circle,  and  that,  by  an 
admirable  progression,  after  having  liberated  the 
lenders,  they  should  hasten  the  liberation  of  the 
borrowers  themselves.     For  that  end,  the  laws  and 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  385 

customs  ought  to  be  favorable  to  economy,  the 
source  of  capital.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  the 
first  of  all  these  conditions  is,  not  to  alarm,  to 
attack,  to  deny  that  which  is  the  stimulus  of  saving 
and  the  reason  of  its  existence — interest. 

As  long  as  we  see  nothing  passing  from  hand  to 
hand,  in  the  character  of  loan,  but  provisions,  mate- 
Tials,  instruments,  things  indispensable  to  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  labor  itself,  the  ideas  thus  far 
exhibited  will  not  find  many  opjDonents.  Who 
knows,  even,  that  I  may  not  be  reproached  for 
having  made  great  effort  to  burst  what  may  be 
said  to  be  an  open  door.  But  as  soon  as  cash 
makes  its  appearance  as  the  subject  of  the  transac- 
tion (and  it  is  this  which  appears  almost  always), 
immediately  a  crowd  of  objections  are  raised. 
Money,  it  will  be  said,  will  not  reproduce  itself, 
like  your  sack  of  corn  /  it  does  not  assist  labor,  like 
jowY plane  y  it  does  not  afford  an  immediate  satis- 
faction, like  your  house.  It  is  incapable,  by  its 
nature,  of  producing  interest,  of  multiplying  itself, 
and  the  remuneration  it  demands  is  a  jDOsitive 
extortion. 

Who  cannot  see  the  sophistry  of  this  ?  Who 
does  not  see  that  cash  is  only  a  transient  form, 
which  men  give  at  the  time  to  other  values,  to  real 
objects  of  usefulness,  for  the  sole  object  of  facilita- 
ting their  arrangements  ?  In  the  midst  of  social 
complications,    the  man  who   is  in  a  condition  to 


386  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

lend  scarcely  ever  lias  the  exact  thing  which  the 
borrower  wants.  James,  it  is  true,  has  a  plane  ; 
but  perhaps  William  wants  a  saw.  They  cannot 
negotiate  ;  the  transaction  favorable  to  both  cannot 
take  place,  and  then  what  happens  ?  It  happens 
that  James  first  exchanges  his  plane  for  money  ;  he 
lends  the  money  to  William,  and  William  ex- 
changes the  money  for  a  saw.  The  transaction  is 
no  longer  a  simple  one  ;  it  is  decomposed  into 
two  parts,  as  I  explained  above  in  speaking  of 
exchange.  But,  for  all  that,  it  has  not  changed  its 
nature  ;  it  still  contains  all  the  elements  of  a  direct 
loan.  James  has  still  got  rid  of  a  tool  which  was 
useful  to  him  ;  William  has  still  received  an  instru- 
ment which  perfects  his  work  and  increases  his  prof- 
its ;  there  is  still  a  service  rendered  by  the  lender 
which  entitles  him  to  receive  an  equivalent  service 
from  the  borrower  ;  this  just  balance  is  not  the  less 
established  by  free  mutual  bargaining.  The  very 
natural  obligation  to  restore  at  the  end  of  the  term 
the  entire  vahie,  still  constitutes  the  principle  of  the 
duration  of  interest. 

At  the  end  of  a  year,  says  M.  Thoré,  will  you  find 
an  additional  crown  in  a  bag  of  a  hundred  pounds  ? 

No,  certainly,  if  the  borrower  puts  the  bag  of 
one  hundred  pounds  on  the  shelf.  In  such  a  case, 
neither  the  plane,  nor  the  sack  of  corn,  would 
reproduce  themselves.  But  it  is  not  for  the  sake 
of  leaving  the  money  in  the  bag,  nor  the  plane  on 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  387 

the  hook,  that  they  are  borrowed.  The  jjlaiie  is 
borrowed  to  be  used,  or  the  money  to  procure  a 
plane.  And  if  it  is  clearly  proved  that  this  tool 
enables  the  borrower  to  obtain  profits  which  he 
M'onld  not  have  made  without  it,  if  it  is  proved  that 
the  lender  has  renounced  creating  for  himself  this 
excess  of  profits,  wo  niay  understand  how  the  stipu- 
laiion  of  a  part  of  this  excess  of  profits  in  favor  of 
the  lender,  is  equitable  and  lawful. 

Ignorance  of  the  true  part  which  cash  plays  in 
human  transactions,  is  the  source  of  the  most  fatal 
errors.  I  intend  devoting  an  entire  pamphlet  to 
this  subject.  From  what  we  may  infer  from  the 
writings  of  M.  Proudhon,  that  which  has  led  him 
to  think  that  gratuitous  credit  was  a  logical  and 
definite  consequence  of  social  progress,  is  the 
observation  of  the  phenomenon  which  shows  a 
decreasing  interest,  almost  in  direct  proportion  to 
the  rate  of  civilization.  In  barbarous  times  it  is, 
in  fact,  cent  per  cent,  and  more.  Then  it  descends 
to  eighty,  sixty,  fifty,  forty,  twenty,  ten,  eight,  five, 
four,  and  three  per  cent.  In  Holland  it  has  even 
been  as  low  as  two  per  cent.  Hence  it  is  concluded, 
that  "  in  proportion  as  society  comes  to  perfection, 
it  will  descend  to  zero  by  the  time  civilization  is 
complete.  In  other  woi-ds,  that  which  character- 
izes social  perfection  is  the  gratuitousness  of  credit. 
When,  therefore,  we  shall  have  abolished  interest, 
we  shall  have  reached  the  last  step  of  progress." 


388  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

This  is,  mere  sophistry,  and  as  such  false  arguing 
may  contribute  to  render  jiopuhir  the  unjust,  dan- 
gerous, and  destructive  dogma,  that  credit  should 
be  gratuitous,  l)y  representing  it  as  coincident  with 
social  perfection,  witli  the  reader's  permission  I  will 
examine  in  a  few  words  this  new  view  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

What  is  interest  ?  It  is  the  service  rendered, 
after  a  free  bargain,  by  the  borrower  to  the  lender, 
in  remuneration  for  the  service  he  had  received  by 
the  loan.  By  what  law  is  the  rate  of  these  remu- 
nerative services  established  ?  By  the  general  law 
which  regulates  the  equivalent  of  all  services — that 
is,  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand. 

The  more  easily  a  thing  is  procured,  the  smaller 
is  the  service  rendered  by  yielding  it  or  lending  it. 
The  man  who  gives  me  a  glass  of  water  in  the 
Pyrenees,  does  not  render  me  so  great  a  service  as 
he  who  allows  me  one  in  the  desert  of  Sahara.  If 
there  are  many  planes,  sacks  of  corn,  or  houses,  in  a 
country,  the  use  of  them  is  obtained,  other  things 
being  equal,  on  more  favorable  conditions  than  if 
they  w^ere  few  ;  for  the  simple  reason,  that  the  lend- 
er renders  in  this  case  a  smaller  relative  service. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  more 
abundant  capital  is,  the  lower  is  the  intei-est. 

Is  this  saying  that  it  will  ever  reach  zero  ?  ÎNo  ; 
because,  I  repeat  it,  the  principle  of  a  remuneration 
is  in  the  loan.     To  sav  that  interest  will  be  anni- 


CAPITAL    AXD    IXTIOREST.  389 

hilated,  is  to  say  that  there  will  never  be  any  motive 
for  saving,  for  denying  ourselves,  in  order  to  form 
new  capital,  nor  even  to  preserve  the  old  ones. 
In  this  case,  the  w;iste  wonld  immediately  bring  a 
void,  and  interest  wonld  directly  reappear. 

In  that,  the  nature  of  the  services  of  which  we 
are  speakiTig  does  not  ditïer  from  any  other.  Thanks 
to  industrial  progress,  a  pair  of  stockings,  which 
used  to  be  worth  six  francs,  has  successively  been 
M'orth  only  four,  three,  and  two.  No  one  can  say 
to  what  point  this  value  will  descend  ;  but  we  can 
affirm,  that  it  will  never  reach  zero,  unless  the 
stockings  finish  by  producing  themselves  spontane- 
ously. Why  ?  Because  the  principle  of  remu- 
neration is  in  labor  ;  because  he  who  works  for 
another  renders  a  service,  and  ought  to  receive  a 
service.  If  no  one  paid  for  stockings,  they  w-ould 
cease  to  be  made  ;  and,  with  the  scarcity,  the  price 
would  not  fail  to  reappear. 

The  sophism  which  I  am  now  combating  has  its 
root  in  the  iniinite  divisil)ility  which  belongs  to 
value,  as  it  does  to  matter. 

It  appears,  at  first,  paradoxical,  but  it  is  well 
known  to  all  mathematicians,  that,  through  all  enter- 
nity,  fractions  may  be  taken  from  a  weight  without 
the  weight  ever  being  annihilated.  It  is  sufficient 
that  each  successive  fraction  be  less  than  the  preced- 
ing one,  in  a  determined  and  regular  proportion. 

There  are  countries    where  people  apply  them- 


390  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

selves  to  increasing  the  size  of  horses,  or  diminish- 
ing in  sheep  the  size  of  the  head.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  precisely  to  what  point  they  will  arrive  in 
this.  No  one  can  say  that  he  has  seen  the  largest 
horse  or  the  smallest  sheep's  head  that  will  ever 
appear  in  the  world.  But  he  may  safely  say  that 
the  size  of  horses  will  never  attain  to  infinity,  nor 
the  heads  of  sheep  to  nothing. 

In  the  same  way,  no  one  can  say  to  what  point  the 
price  of  stockings  nor  the  interest  of  capital  will 
come  down  ;  but  we  may  safely  affirm,  when  we 
know  the  nature  of  things,  that  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other  will  ever  arrive  at  zero,  for  labor  and 
capital  can  no  more  live  without  recompense  than 
a  sheep  without  a  head. 

The  arguments  of  M.  Proudhon  reduce  them- 
selves, then,  to  this  :  since  the  most  skilful  agricult- 
urists are  those  who  have  reduced  the  heads  of 
sheep  to  the  smallest  size,  we  shall  have  arrived  at 
the  highest  agricultural  perfection  when  sheep  have 
no  longer  any  heads.  Therefore,  in  order  to  real- 
ize the  perfection,  let  us  behead  them. 

I  have  now  done  with  this  wearisome  discussion. 
Why  is  it  that  the  breath  of  false  doctrine  has 
made  it  needful  to  examine  into  the  intimate  nature 
of  interest  ?  I  must  not  leave  oiï  without  remark- 
ing upon  a  beautiful  moral  which  may  be  drawn 
from  this  law  :  "  The  depression  of  interest  is  pro- 
portioned to  the  abundance  of  capital.  "      This  law 


CAPITAL    AND    TNTKREST.  391 

being  granted,  if  there  is  a  class  of  men  to  wlioni 
it  is  more  important  tlian  to  any  other  that  capital 
be  formed,  accumulate,  multiply,  abound,  and  su- 
perabound,  it  is  certainly  the  class  Avhich  borrows 
them  directly  or  indirectly  ;  it  is  those  men  wlio 
operate  upon  tiiaterialsy  who  gain  assistance  by 
instrutnents,  who  live  upon  provisions,  produced 
and  economized  by  other  uien. 

Imagine,  in  a  vast  and  fertile  country,  a  popula- 
tion of  a  thousand  inhabitants,  destitute  of  all 
capital  thus  defined.  It  will  assuredly  perish  by 
the  pangs  of  hunger.  Let  us  suppose  a  case  hardly 
less  cruel.  Let  us  suppose  that  ten  of  these  savages 
are  provided  with  instruments  and  provisions  suffi- 
cient to  work  and  to  live  themselves  until  harvest 
time,  as  well  as  to  remunerate  the  services  of  eighty 
laborers.  The  inevitable  result  Avill  be  the  death 
of  nine  hundred  human  beings.  It  is  clear,  then, 
that  since  nine  hundred  and  ninety  men.  urged  by 
want,  will  crowd  upon  the  supports  which  would  only 
maintain  a  hundred,  the  ten  capitalists  will  lie  mas- 
ters of  the  market.  They  will  obtain  labor  on  the 
hardest  conditions,  for  they  will  put  it  up  to  auction, 
or  the  highest  bidder.  And  observe  this — if  these 
capitalists  entertain  such  pious  sentiments  as  would 
induce  them  to  impose  personal  privations  on  them- 
selves, in  order  to  diminish  the  sufferings  of  some 
of  their  brethren,  this  generosity  which  attaches  to 
morality   will  be  as  noble  in  its  principle  as  useful 


392  CAPITAL    AND    IXTEREST. 

in  its  effects.  But  if,  duped  by  that  false  pîaibsophy 
which  persons  wish  so  inconsiderately^  to  mingle 
with  economic  laws,  they  take  to  remunerating 
labor  largely,  far  from  doing  good,  they  will  do 
harm.  They  will  give  double  wages,  it  may  be. 
But  then,  forty-live  men  will  be  better  provided  for, 
whilst  forty-five  others  will  come  to  augment  the 
number  of  those  who  are  sinking  into  the  grave. 

Upon  this  supposition,  it  is  not  the  lowering  of 
M'ages  which  is  the  mischief,  it  is  the  scarcity  of 
capital.  Low  wages  are  not  the  cause,  but  the 
effect  of  the  evil.  I  may  add  that  they  are  to  a 
certain  extent  the  remedy.  It  acts  in  this  way  : 
it  distributes  the  burden  of  suffering  as  much  as  it 
can,  and  saves  as  many  lives  as  a  limited  quantity 
of  sustenance  permits. 

Suppose  now,  that  instead  of  ten  capitalists, 
there  should  be  a  hundred,  two  hundred,  five  hun- 
dred— is  it  not  evident  that  the  condition  of  the 
whole  pojjulation,  and,  above  all,  that  of  the  "pro- 
létaires,"* will  be  more  and  more  improved?  Is 
it  not  evident  that,  aj)art  from  every  consideration 
of  generosity,  they  would  obtain  more  work  and 
better  pay  for  it  ? — that  they  themselves  will  be  in 
a  better  condition  to  form  capitals,  without  being 
able  to  fix  the  limits  to  this  ever-increasing  facility 
of    realizing   equality   and   well-being?     Would  it 

*  Common  people. 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  393 

not  be  madness  in  tliem  to  admit  sucli  doctrines, 
and  to  act  in  a  way  which  woukl  drain  the  source 
of  wages,  and  paralj'ze  tlie  activity  and  stimulus  of 
saving  ?  Let  them  learn  this  lesson,  then  ;  doubt- 
less, capitals  are  good  for  those  who  possess  them  : 
who  denies  it  ?  But  tliev  are  also  useful  to  those 
who  have  not  yet  been  able  to  form  them  ;  and  it 
is  important  to  those  who  have  them  not,  that 
others  should  have  them. 

Yes,  if  the  "prolétaires"  knew  their  true  inter- 
ests, they  would  seek,  with  the  greatest  care,  what 
circumstances  are,  and  what  are  not  favorable  to 
saving,  in  order  to  favor  the  former  and  to  dis- 
courage the  latter.  They  would  symp?.thize  with 
every  measure  which  tends  to  the  rapid  formatif)n 
of  capitals.  They  would  be  enthusiastic  promoters 
of  peace,  liberty,  order,  secui'ity,  the  union  of 
classes  and  peoples,  economy,  moderation  in  public 
expenses,  simplicity'  in  the  machinery  of  govern- 
ment ;  for  it  is  under  the  sway  of  all  these  circum- 
stances that  saving  does  its  work,  brings  plenty 
within  the  reach  of  the  masses,  invites  those  per- 
sons to  become  the  formers  of  capital  who  were 
formerly  under  the  necessity  of  borrowing  upon 
hard  conditions.  They  would  repel  with  energy 
the  warlike  spirit,  which  diverts  from  its  true  course 
60  large  a  part  of  human  labor  ;  the  monopolizing 
spirit,  which  deranges  the  equitable  distribution  of 
riches,    in   the   ■\^'ay    by   which    liberty   alone    can 


394  CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST. 

realize  it  ;  the  multitude  of  public  services,  which 
attack  our  purses  oulj  to  check  our  liberty  ;  and, 
in  short,  tliose  subversive,  hateful,  thoughtless 
doctrines,  which  alarm  capital,  prevent  its  forma- 
tion, oblige  it  to  flee,  and  finally  to  raise  its  price, 
to  the  special  disadvantage  of  the  workers,  who 
bring  it  into  operation.  Well,  and  in  this  respect 
is  not  the  revolution  of  February  a  hard  lesson  ? 
Is  it  not  evident  that  the  insecurity  it  has  thrown 
into  the  world  of  business,  on  the  one  hand  ;  and, 
on  the  other,  the  advancement  of  the  fatal  theories 
to  which  I  have  alluded,  and  which,  from  the  clubs 
have  almost  penetrated  into  the  regions  of  the 
Legislature,  have  everywhere  raised  the  rate  of 
interest  ?  Is  it  not  evident,  that  from  that  time 
the  "prolétaires"  have  found  greater  difficulty  in 
procuring  those  materials,  instruments,  and  provi- 
sions, without  which  labor  is  impossible  ?  Is  it 
not  that  v/hich  has  caused  stoppages  ;  and  do  not 
stoppages,  in  their  turn,  lower  wages  ?  Thus  there 
is  a  deficiency  of  labor  to  the  "prolétaires,"  from 
the  same  cause  which  loads  the  objects  they  con- 
sume with  an  increase  of  price,  in  consequence  of 
the  rise  of  interest.  High  interest,  low  wages, 
means  in  other  words  that  the  same  article  preserves 
its  price,  but  that  the  part  ^  of  the  capitalist  has 
invaded,  without  profiting  himself,  that  of  the 
workman. 

A  friend  of  mine,  commissioned  to  make  inquiiy 


CAPITAL    AND    INTEREST.  395 

into  Parisian  industry,  has  assured  me  tliat  the 
manufacturers  have  revealed  to  him  a  very  striking 
fact,  wliich  proves,  better  than  any  reasoning  can, 
liow  much  insecurity  and  uncertainty  injure  the 
formation  of  capital.  It  was  remarked  that  during 
the  most  distressing  period  the  popular  expenses  of 
mere  fancy  had  not  diminished.  The  small  theaters, 
the  fighting  lists,  the  public  houses,  and  tobacco 
depots,  were  as  much  frequented  as  in  prosperous 
times.  In  the  inquiry,  the  operatives  themselves 
explained  this  phenomenon  thus:  "What  is  the 
use  of  pinching  ?  Who  knows  what  will  happen  to 
us  ?  Who  knows  that  interest  will  not  be  abolish- 
ed ?  Who  knows  but  that  the  State  will  become  a 
universal  and  gratuitous  lender,  and  that  it  will  wish 
to  annihilate  all  the  fruits  which  we  might  expect 
from  our  savings  ?"  Well  !  I  say,  that  if  such  ideas 
could  prevail  during  two  single  years,  it  would  be 
enough  to  turn  our  beautiful  France  into  a  Turkey 
— misery  would  become  general  and  endemic,  and, 
most  assuredly,  the  poor  would  be  the  first  upon 
whom  it  would  f;dl. 

Workmen  !  They  talk  to  you  a  great  deal  upon 
the  artificial  organization  of  labor  ; — do  you  know 
why  they  do  so  ?  Because  they  are  ignorant  of  the 
laws  of  its  natural  organization  ;  that  is,  of  the 
wonderful  organization  which  results  from  liberty. 
You  are  told  that  liberty  gives  rise  to  wliat  is  called 
the  radical  antagonism  of  classes  ;  that  it  creates. 


CAPITAL    AND    IXTEREST. 

and  Aiakes  to  clash,  two  opposite  interests — that  of 
the  capitalists  and  that  of  the  "prolétaires.""  But 
we  oufçlit  to  begin  by  proving  that  this  antagonism 
exists  by  a  law  of  nature  ;  and  afterward  it  would 
remain  to  be  shown  how  far  the  arrangements  of 
restraint  are  superior  to  those  of  liberty,  for  be- 
tween liberty  and  restraint  I  see  no  middle  path. 
Again,  it  would  remain  to  be  proved,  that  restraint 
would  always  operate  to  your  advantage,  and  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  rich.  But,  no  ;  this  radical  an- 
tagonism, this  natural  opposition  of  interests,  does 
not  exist.  It  is  only  an  evil  dream  of  jserverted  and 
intoxicated  imaginations.  ISo  ;  a  plan  so  defective 
has  not  proceeded  from  the  Divine  Mind.  To  af- 
firm it,  we  must  begin  by  denying  the  existence  of 
God.  And  see  how,  by  means  of  social  laws,  and 
because  men  exchange  among  themselves  their  la- 
bors and  their  productions,  see  what  a  harmonious 
tie  attaches  the  classes  one  to  the  other  !  There 
are  the  landowners;  what  is  their  interest  ?  That 
the  soil  be  fertile,  and  the  sun  benelicent  :  and  what 
is  the  result  ?  That  corn  abounds,  that  it  falls  in 
price,  and  the  advantage  turns  to  the  profit  of  those 
who  have  had  no  patrimony.  There  are  the  manu- 
facturers ;  what  is  their  constant  thought  ?  To  per- 
fect their  labor,  to  increase  the  power  of  their  nja- 
chines,  to  procure  for  themselves,  upon  the  best 
terras,  the  raw  material.  And  to  what  does  all  this 
tend  '{     To  the  abundance  and  low  price  of  produce  ; 


CAPITAL    AND    IXTEREST.  397 

that  is,  that  all  the  efforts  of  the  manufacturers,  and 
without  their  suspecting  it,  result  in  a  proiit  to  the 
public  consumer,  of  which  each  of  you  is  one.  It 
is  the  same  with  every  profession.  Well,  the  capi- 
talists are  not  exempt  from  this  law.  They  are  very 
busy  making  schemes,  economizing,  and  turning 
them  to  their  advantage.  This  is  all  very  well  ;  but 
the  more  they  succeed,  the  more  do  they  promote 
the  abundance  of  capital,  and,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, the  reduction  of  interest  ?  ^ow,  who  is  it 
that  profits  by  the  reduction  of  interest  ?  Is  it  not 
the  borrower  first,  and  finally,  the  consumers  of  the 
things  vvdiich  the  capitals  contribute  to  produce  ? 

It  is  therefore  certain  that  the  final  result  of  the 
efforts  of  each  class  is  the  common  good  of  all. 

You  arc  told  that  capital  tyrannizes  over  labor.  I 
do  not  deny  that  each  one  endeavors  to  draw  the 
greatest  possible  advantage  from  his  situation  ;  but, 
in  this  sense,  he  realizes  only  that  which  is  possible. 
Now,  it  is  never  more  possible  for  capitals  to  tyran- 
nize over  labor,  than  when  they  are  scarce  ;  for  then 
it  is  they  who  make  the  law — it  is  they  who  regu- 
late the  rate  of  sale.  ]!*^ever  is  this  tyranny  more 
impossil)le  to  them,  than  wdien  they  are  abundant  ; 
for,  in  that  case,  it  is  labor  wdiich  has  the  command. 

Away,  then,  with  the  jealousies  of  classes,  ill-will, 
unfounded  hatreds,  unjust  sus^^icions.  These  de- 
praved passions  injure  those  who  nourish  them  in 
their  hearts.     This  is  no  declamatory  morality  ;  it 


398  CAPITAL    AND    INTEEB8T. 

is  a  chain  of  causes  and  effects,  whicli  is  capable  of 
beinc;  rigorously,  matlieraatically  demonstrated.  It 
is  not  the  less  sublime  in  that  it  satisfies  the  intel- 
lect as  well  as  the  feelings. 

I  shall  sum  up  this  whole  dissertation  with  these 
words  :  Workmen,  laborers,  "  prolétaires,"  desti- 
tute and  suffering  classes,  will  you  improve  your  con- 
dition ?  You  will  not  succeed  by  strife,  insurrec- 
tion, hatred,  and  error.  But  there  are  three  thijigs 
which  cannot  perfect  the  entire  community  without 
extending  these  benefits  to  yourselves  ;  these  things 
are — peace,  liberty,  and  security. 


399 

THE  AMERICAN  FREE -TRADE  LEAGUE 

Holds  That,  Every  man  should  have  the  right  to  exchange  the  products 
of  his  labor,  wherever  he  can  obtain  the  most  for  it. 

That,  He  should  be  free  to  seek  his  own  welfare  in  his  own  way,  so  long 
as  he  does  not  infringe  the  rights  of  others. 

That,  So  far  as  he  is  deprived  of  these  rights,  he  is  in  slavery. 

It  Recognizes  the  Importance  and  Dignity  of  Labor,  because  La- 
bor is  the  source  of  prosperity.  It  holds,  therefore,  that  to  tax  the 
necessities  of  the  laborer,  with  a  view  to  benefit  the  manufacturing 
capitalist,  is  to  strike  a  blow  at  the  foundation  of  the  country's  pros- 
perity. 

It  Holds  That  Every  Country  has  its  peculiar  natural  advantages,  and 
that  to  produce  what  'can  be  most  easily  produced  in  it,  and  to  ex- 
change such  products  for  what  is  more  easily  produced  elsewhere,  is 
the  most  profitable  exertion  of  its  industry. 

That,  The  true  means  of  encouraging  Home  Industry  and  of  lessening 
poverty,  is  to  remove  every  obstacle  to  the  free  exchange  of  the  prod- 
ucts of  labor. 

It  Holds  That,  "  The  Protective  System."  so  called,  is  only  ignorant 
National  selfishness,  which  defeats  its  own  ends. 

That,  It  is  contrary  to  the  wise  and  beneficent  laws  of  Providence. 

That,  It  diverts  Capital  and  Labor  from  the  mos»:  efficient  occupations  to 
others  proved  less  efficient  by  their  need  of  artificial  suppoit. 

That,  It  is  an  odious  form  of  class  legislation. 

That,  It  is  a  fertile  source  of  social,  sectional,  and  international  discord. 

That,  It  encourages  commercial  dishonesty  and  ofificial  corruption. 

It  Holds  That,  Free-trade  with  all  the  world  will  conduce  to  our  high- 
est welfare,  and  is  pre-eminently  worthy  of  the  American  people,  who 
should  be  foremost  in  hrea^'.r.^  down  every  social  and  commercial 
barrier. 

The  American  Free-Trade  League  submits  to  taxation  and  dutj»s  to 
meet  the  necessities  of  Government,  but  denounces  as  robbery  and 
tyranny  all  taxation  for  the  benefit  of  special  classes. 

The  League  urges  all  who  agree  with  these  principles,  to  unite  with  •'  ■'« 
obtaining  emancipation  for  Industry  and  Commerce. 


THE   TARIFF  QUESTION. 


The   Tariff   History   of  the    United   States,    1789-1888. 

Comprising  the  uialerial  contained  in  "  Protection  to  Young 
Industries  "  and  "  History  of  tlie  Present  Tariff,"  together 
with  the  revisions  and  additions  needed  to  complete  the  nar- 
rative. By  Prof.  F.  \V.  Taussig.  i2mo,  cloth.  (Questions 
of  the  D.iy  Series,  No.  47.)  .....     $1.25 

Chief  Contents. — Protection  to  Young  Industries  as  Applied  in  the 
United  States.  I.  The  Argument  in  general.  II.  Industrial  History  of  the 
Colonies  and  of  the  United  States  before  lSo8.  III.  The  Cotton  Manufac- 
ture.    IV.   The  Woollen  Manufacture.     V.    The  Iron  Manufacture. 

The  Early  Protective  Movement  and  the  Tarife  of  1828.  The 
Tariff,  1S30-1S60.  The  History  of  the  Existing  Tariff,  1860-18S8. — 
I.  The  War  Tariff.  II.  The  Failure  to  Reduce  the  Tariff  after  the  War.  III. 
How  Duties  were  Raised  above  the  War  Rates.  IV.  The  Tariff  Act  of  1S83. 
Unsuccessful  Attempts  at  Legislation  since  1883. 

The  President's  Message.  With  Annotations  of  Facts  and 
Figures.  By  R.  R.  Bowker.  (Questions  of  the  Day  Series, 
No.  49.) 25c. 

A  republication,  in  convenient  form  for  reference,  of  the  clear  and  business- 
like statement  made  by  President  Cleveland,  in  hs  latest  message  to  Congress, 
of  the  economical  issuers  now  before  the  country  for  deci^ion. 

Practical  Economics.  A  Collection  of  Essays  respecting  Cer- 
tain of  the  Economic  Experiences  of  the  United  States  By 
David  A.  Wells.    Svo,  cloth         ....         $1.50 

Chief  Contents. — A  Modem  Financial  Utopia — The  True  Story  of  the 
Leaden  Images — The  Taxntion  of  l^istilled  Spirits — Recent  Phases  of  the 
Tariff  Question — Tariff  Revi:,ion — The  Pauper-Labor  Argument — The  Silver 
Question — Measures  of  Value — Tlie  Production  and  Distribution  of  Wealth. 

"  In  my  clear  opinion,  it  is  the  most  comprehensive,  conclusive,  and  power- 
ful statement  of  the  truth  respecting  freedom  of  exchange,  as  to  theory  and  as 
to  practice,  that  exists  in  any  language  or  literature." — Manton   Marble. 

Lectures  on  The  History  of  Protection  in  the  United 
States.  By  Prof.  W.  G.  Sumner,  of  Yale  College.  Svo, 
cloth  extra         ........  75c. 

"  There  is  nothing  in  the  literature  of  free  trade  more  forcible  and  effective 
than  this  little  book." — .V.    V.  Evening  Post. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SON'S  PUBLICATIONS. 

The  Industrial  Situation  and  the  Question  of  Wages. 

A  Study  in  Social  Physiology.  By  J.  Schoenhof,  author  of 
"Destructive  Influence  of  the  Tariff,"  etc.  (Questions  of 
the  Day  Series,  No.  30.)     8vo,  cloth        .         .         .         $1.00 

"  The  author  has  made  a  careful  analysis  of  tlie  organic  elements  of  production 
and  distribution.  The  presentation  of  the  subject  is  supported  by  excellent 
tables  of  interesting  statistics." — Burlington  Hazvkeye. 

The  Destructive  Influence  of  the  Tariff  upon  Manufac- 
ture and  Commerce,  and  the  Facts  and  Figures  Re- 
lating   Thereto.     By  J.  Schoenhof.     (Questions  of  the 
Day  Series,  No.  9).     Svo,  cloth       .         .        75c.  ;  paper,  40c. 
"  An  able  presentation  of  the  subject  by  a  practical  man,  which  should  have 
a  wide  circulation." 

"  ^Ye  recommend  the  book  to  all  who  are  interested  in  this  great  question  of 
the  day." — Chaileston  IVe-i's  and  Courier. 

Why  We  Trade  and  How  We  Trade,  or  an  enquiry  into  the 
extent  to  which  the  existing  commercial  and  fiscal  policy  of 
the  United  States  restricts  the  material  prosperity  and  de- 
velopment of  the  country.  By  David  A.  Wells.  (Econ- 
omic Monograph,  No.  i.)  ,         .         .         .         .         25c. 

Protection  and  Revenue  in  1877.  By  Prof.  W.  G.  Sumner, 
author  of  "  History  of  Protection  in  the  United  States." 
(Economic  Monograph,  No.  8.)  .  .  .  .  25c. 

The  Tariff  Question  and  its  Relation  to  the  Present 
Commercial  Crisis.  By  Horace  White.  (Economic 
Monograph,  No.  3.)     ......         .       25c. 

Friendly  Sermons  to  Protectionists  and  Manufacturers. 
By  J.  S.  Moore.     (Economic  Monograph,  No.  4.)     .       25c. 

An  Essay  on  Free  Trade.  By  Richard  Hawley.  (Econ- 
omic Monograph,  No.  10.)         .....         25c. 

*^*  The  above  are  for  sale  by  all  booksellers,  and  will  be  sent  postpaid  upon 
receipt  of  price  by  the  publishers, 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS, 

27  and  29  W.  23d  Street,  New  York. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


i\  r 


^.f^mm 


A(Vi 


7-4 

re4:e 


4-9 

ED 
LD-URl 


ip:  ^n 


1965 


PM 


,|UN  2  8  1978 


